BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Answer to Address)

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That the Address of 12 December, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Mr William Lifford to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years with effect from 11 January 2018, was presented to Her Majesty, who was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

DIGITAL, CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Channel 4

David Hanson: When she plans to announce her decision on a new location for Channel 4.

Karen Bradley: We have been clear all along that this is a publicly owned broadcaster. Channel 4 must provide for and reflect the country as a whole. We are still in discussions with Channel 4 about how it should do this, including through relocating staff out of London, and we will set out next steps in due course.

David Hanson: Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. Will the Secretary of State confirm that moving Channel 4 out of London would bring an approximate £600 million benefit to broadcasting, and that it is unacceptable that only four of the 120 commissioners of programmes for Channel 4 currently live outside London? There is an economic benefit, whether it is Salford, which I prefer, Birmingham, Sheffield or Leeds, and it should be done now.

Karen Bradley: I thought it was going to be a bid for Wrexham, so I am interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s views on other locations. There are many estimates of the benefit, but Channel 4 relocating out of London would have a clear benefit to the country. It is a publicly owned broadcaster and as such we expect it to deliver public benefits above and beyond commercial benefits, and that includes relocating out of London.

John Whittingdale: While I welcome the reports that Channel 4 will be employing more people and investing more money outside London, does my  right hon. Friend agree that to send the message that Channel 4 is an alternative broadcaster serving different audiences, its headquarters should not be in SW1?

Karen Bradley: My right hon. Friend speaks with great experience and knowledge on this matter, and the House does well to listen to his wise words.

Christine Jardine: Does the Secretary of State agree that, as Channel 4 is not a programme maker but only a programme commissioner, there is limited benefit in moving staff, and surely it should be the programme making that reflects the diversity of the country?

Karen Bradley: This is one of the arguments that has been made about how Channel 4’s business model operates. We have seen what happened with the BBC’s move to Salford—although I accept that the BBC has a different business model. That creativity and clustering of talent has had benefit. One has only to look at the analysis of the amount of programming that is currently commissioned outside London to see that basing Channel 4 outside London could have significant benefits for those independent production companies that are not in SW1.

National Lottery Funding: Charities

Wes Streeting: What steps her Department is taking to ensure that the level of National Lottery funding for charities is maintained.

Tracey Crouch: May I start by wishing you and Members of the whole House a happy Christmas, Mr Speaker? wWe are working with Camelot and the Gambling Commission to ensure that returns to good causes are as high as possible for the future, and with the lottery distributors to highlight the link between playing the lottery and supporting good causes.

Wes Streeting: Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone else. I thank the Minister for her answer. Charities doing important work across the country depend on the money they are awarded by lottery distributors, but due to the fall last year and the expected fall next year of lottery income for good causes, distributors may not be able to meet their financial commitments. The Government have already agreed to underwrite any shortfall for UK Sport. Will the Minister now commit to doing so for other funding bodies?

Tracey Crouch: We are working with the Gambling Commission and Camelot to review their strategy, to ensure that there is no continuous fall in lottery funding. The national lottery has raised more than £37 billion for good causes since it started in 1994. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman’s own constituency has received £35 million across 400 lottery grants. Clearly, every Member of this House has an interest in making sure that the national lottery is a success. May I encourage everybody to go out and buy a ticket?

Amanda Milling: May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and everybody else a happy Christmas too? It is not only the national lottery that provides  invaluable funding for charities and good causes; so, too, do society lotteries. Last week we had an excellent Westminster Hall debate about society lotteries, and it was clear that there was cross-party support for reform. Will my hon. Friend commit to looking at society lottery reforms at the earliest possible opportunity in the new year?

Tracey Crouch: As my hon. Friend has said, we had an excellent debate last week in Westminster Hall. The answer to her question then and now is yes.

Chris Elmore: Since my election in 2016 I have held funding advice surgeries twice a year to encourage charities in my constituency to gain lottery funding. One of the reasons for that is that the Big Lottery told me that it receives a very small number of applications from my constituency. What more can the Minister do to get the lottery out into constituencies such as mine to enable charities to access the funds and to help them with applications?

Tracey Crouch: That is an excellent idea. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to write to colleagues across the House to explain how he set that up in his constituency and how they can benefit from doing the same.

Nusrat Ghani: Happy Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who does not seem to have any Christmas spirit.

Desmond Swayne: Humbug!

Nusrat Ghani: Does the Minister agree that national lottery funding should also be made available to smaller charities? Although they may help fewer people, in my constituency of Wealden there are very few options for vulnerable young and old people. In particular, clued-up.info in Crowborough helps teenagers; Sussex Oakleaf in Hailsham helps people with mental health issues; and the Now! Charity Group provides furniture for unemployed people and those on low income across East Sussex.

Tracey Crouch: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the small charities in her constituency. Small charities provide a huge benefit in their locations. We celebrated the work of small charities on Local Charities Day last Friday, and we will continue to do all we can to support them in the future.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her responses so far. Will she further outline whether she intends to oversee a more streamlined approach to administration, which would allow more funding to go to charities, and how would she envisage such a scheme?

Tracey Crouch: We look at administration issues all the time. This was reviewed recently and I am sure it will be a key part of the conversation as we take forward the next licence discussion.

Tom Watson: I would like to announce to the House that the Commonwealth games have just been awarded to Birmingham. As you know, Mr Speaker, the lottery provides vital support for sport, which is why it is so disturbing that this week the  National Audit Office published a report saying that since 2009, lottery income for good causes has risen by just 2%, while the shareholder profits of the lottery licence holder, Camelot, have risen by 122%. Does the Minister think that those ratios seem fair? Will grassroots sport and the Commonwealth games be secure for lottery funding in the future?

Tracey Crouch: The cheek of the hon. Gentleman! We did all hard work on the Commonwealth games, along with Mayor Andy Street. It was announced formally at 9.30 this morning in Birmingham. I was pleased to sign the host city contract and I am pleased that we will hold the Commonwealth games in 2022. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will benefit from that, as will we all. Turning to the substance of his question, the Secretary of State and I are not unsympathetic to the points he made.

Public Libraries

Luke Pollard: What recent assessment she has made of the role of public libraries in increasing social mobility.

John Glen: Libraries play an important role in giving everyone opportunities to improve their life chances and achieve their full potential. That is why the Government have established the libraries taskforce and funds under Libraries Deliver to assist in that goal.

Luke Pollard: The Minister will know from his time as a parliamentary candidate in Plymouth how important libraries are to social mobility in the city. The Conservative council in Plymouth has this year closed six of our libraries—two in the constituency I represent and four in the constituency in which the Minister stood. Will he spread some festive cheer and tell library users in Plymouth that there will be no more library closures in the new year?

John Glen: What I can say is that Plymouth City Council received £56,000 for cultural learning activities last summer, which saw 5,000 young people visit, and 3,000 were given healthy lunches, involving a collaboration with the Theatre Royal, Music Makers and the National Marine Aquarium, which represents the sort of grown-up thinking about the way libraries act in our constituencies across the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on his tie, which is as flamboyant as my own.

Philip Hollobone: Northamptonshire County Council is proposing to cut 28 of its 36 libraries. Will the Minister send in the Government’s libraries taskforce to see whether a county-wide libraries trust might be set up to save these vital public services?

John Glen: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. I will be visiting a number of libraries in the new year, following the seven I have already visited, with the new  chair of the libraries taskforce, and I will be happy to engage with my hon. Friend and his local authority to see whether there are alternative ways forward.

Barry Sheerman: Ebenezer Scrooge, and indeed Charles Dickens, would recognise exactly the mood in this country at the moment, with libraries closing and children being unable to go there to do their homework or access computers. What kind of Britain is this, when we think of Dickens and Scrooge at this time of year, with this Government?

John Glen: I think that is an unfortunate characterisation of the hard work of thousands of librarians up and down the country and thousands of volunteers. Libraries are working hard to deliver a range of social outcomes, promoting literacy and digital skills, providing support for jobseekers, and career and business decisions are helped by library services. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman takes such a downbeat view at this time of year.

Michael Tomlinson: Mr Speaker, I am sorry that my tie has not caught your eye as well as the tie of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), but I will try harder in 2018.
Does the Minister agree that all libraries can play a part in social mobility? Will he join me in thanking the volunteers of Colehill community library in my constituency for all their hard work? It is not just a traditional library; there is a jigsaw library and there are one-to-one computer sessions, and I have even held my surgery there.

John Bercow: It sounds very exciting.

John Glen: I think that my hon. Friend’s tie is fantastic. I am very happy to pay tribute to his local library. We are seeing a range of models up and down the country delivering a range of outcomes appropriate to the needs of different communities, and Dorset is no exception.

Kevin Brennan: My tie is very plain, Mr Speaker.
I can announce to the House that over 100 libraries closed this year. Libraries are genuine engines of social mobility. Why are the Government content with that situation, because the Minister seems to be? Does he agree with the editor of Public Library News, who recently stated:
“The example of other countries shows that the decline of the library in this country is not a natural thing: this is a man-made disaster, brought on by short-sighted but long-term cuts”?
He is right, is he not? And merry Christmas.

John Glen: Merry Christmas to the hon. Gentleman, and to you, Mr Speaker. The reality is that different library services tackle the provision they deliver for their local communities in different ways. There are clearly challenges in the libraries sector. I am working hard with the libraries taskforce, and with librarians across the country, to look at ways of delivering better services, and I will continue to do that. In many communities we are seeing more volunteers enthusiastically engaging with library provisions in order to deliver better services.

Broadband: Scotland

Stephen Kerr: If she will assume responsibility for ensuring the delivery of broadband in Scotland.

Matthew Hancock: Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and a happy Christmas to friends across the House, including the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury). In the past we decided to deliver broadband in Scotland through the Scottish Government. We provided additional funding in February 2014 to support further roll-out, but the Scottish Government have only just begun the procurement process using the funding and are not expecting to have an agreed contract until the end of next year—over three years behind Wales, England and Northern Ireland. In future, therefore, the Government will implement the new full fibre programme and the 5G programme directly with local authorities to ensure efficient delivery.

Stephen Kerr: I thank the Minister for his response and for his recent visit to my constituency. Given the Ofcom “Connected nations” report, which describes the situation he has summarised—the Scottish Government have not even started the second phase of delivery—will he confirm that his Department will work directly with local councils in Scotland to implement future phases of broadband roll-out?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I will.

Alan Brown: Scottish Tory Back Benchers have agreed that clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is flawed and amounts to a power grab. Is the situation with broadband not the same, and is it not time that the Minister worked with the Scottish Government instead of trying to bypass them?

Matthew Hancock: We have tried to work with the Scottish Government for years, but when the First Minister first took my hand on a cold Christmas eve, she promised me broadband was waiting for me. It is three years later and we are still waiting for the Scottish Government to get on with it.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: My constituency is on the southern side of the border, which is just a line on the map as far as they are concerned. North Northumberland is still struggling to get the broadband it needs so that my many small villages are not cut off. Will the Minister commit that, in 2018, we will see progress there?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, absolutely, and increasingly we need to ensure that the delivery works on both sides of the border. Obviously, what matters is getting the roll-out of superfast broadband to everybody in the borders and throughout the country. No matter where the administrative boundaries are, what matters is getting broadband connections to people.

Brendan O'Hara: In this the season of good will, will the Minister join me in congratulating the Scottish Government following last week’s announcement that, despite it being a reserved  matter, they are to invest £600 million in rolling out 30 megabit superfast broadband across Scotland, with priority given to rural Scotland, thereby making Scotland a truly world-class digital nation by 2021?

Matthew Hancock: I will certainly join the hon. Gentleman in wishing a merry Christmas to everybody in the Scottish National party and the SNP Government in Scotland. I am delighted that, finally, three and a half years after being granted the money, they have got on with the start of the procurement, but it will take another year for the second phase of the roll-out to get going. He, and more importantly his constituents, will understand why we have grown tired of waiting for the Scottish Government and getting on with delivering directly through local councils in Scotland in future.

Public Libraries

Liz McInnes: What recent assessment she has made of the effect on public libraries of changes to local authority budgets.

John Glen: Local authorities have a duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient service that meets local needs within available resources. The Government fully recognise the importance and significance of public libraries for local communities.

Liz McInnes: I thank the Minister for that response. My local authority, Labour-run Rochdale Borough Council, has endeavoured to keep all our public libraries open, recognising their importance to our communities. They are much more than just books; they are information, support and advice centres. I hold surgeries at our libraries, as does the citizens advice bureau. What action will the Minister take to support such good practice and, in the face of further cuts, how will he ensure its sustainability?

John Glen: I was delighted to see that the Manchester combined authority, which includes Rochdale, received £250,000 from the libraries opportunities for everyone fund. I will continue to work with the libraries taskforce to extend benchmarks, toolkits and best practices, and to look at different models of delivering services to ensure that libraries continue to thrive, as we see in Rochdale.

Superfast Broadband

Edward Leigh: What recent assessment she has made of progress towards the target of 95% superfast broadband coverage.

Lee Rowley: What recent assessment she has made of progress towards the target of 95% superfast broadband coverage.

Matthew Hancock: Superfast broadband is available to more than 94% of homes and businesses in the UK. We are confident that that will reach 95% by the end of the year. More than 4.6 million additional homes and businesses have superfast broadband available for the first time thanks to the Government’s superfast broadband programme.

Edward Leigh: When it comes to broadband in rural Lincolnshire, there is not much of a season of good will. The fact is that even 150 years ago, the Post Office could roll out a universal service—it did not matter where people lived—but in many rural villages in Lincolnshire, including mine, the broadband is appalling. People are trying to do business in these villages, so will the Minister get his skates on and get BT to roll out broadband to them?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I have some Christmas cheer for people in Lincolnshire who want better broadband, because yesterday we announced that we are taking forward the legal guarantee for decent high-speed broadband under the universal service obligation. All I can say on this, Mr Speaker, is that all I want for Christmas is USO.

John Bercow: Very well done.

Lee Rowley: I am not sure how to follow that, Mr Speaker. A number of villages in my constituency, including Spinkhill, Renishaw and those bordering the Peak District national park, are suffering from similar issues to those that have just been raised. Will the Minister outline all the work the Government are doing to try to improve that?

Matthew Hancock: Of course, the USO for broadband will be UK-wide, so wherever someone lives in the UK they will have a legal right to high-speed broadband by 2020.

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman makes it all sound very exciting, I must say. I obviously have not lived yet.

Conor McGinn: Will the Minister join me in welcoming moves by the Advertising Standards Authority to ensure that providers advertise more accurate average broadband speeds rather than “up to” speeds? Will the Government push for that for to be introduced immediately rather than next May, as currently proposed?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman that the promises made on broadband need to be based on what people actually get, and the end of these so-called “up to” speeds cannot happen too soon.

Nicholas Dakin: Constituents in parts of my constituency, such as Cadney, Howsham and Cleatham, are getting very poor broadband services at the moment. Do they really have to wait until 2020 for the USO or will the Minister act more quickly?

Matthew Hancock: I would like it to be in place more quickly if possible, but I am not willing to commit to that because this area has been bedevilled in the past by people overpromising and underdelivering. If we can go faster, we will, but we will have it in place by 2020.

Online Ticket Sales

Paul Masterton: What steps her Department is taking to tackle problems associated with online ticket sales.

Karen Bradley: We are committed to cracking down on unacceptable behaviour in the ticketing market and improving fans’ chances of buying tickets at a reasonable price. We are strengthening the existing ticketing provisions in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and we intend to introduce a new criminal offence of using automated software to buy more tickets than allowed. We also welcome the work of the Competition and Markets Authority in this area, as well as the industry’s own initiatives.

Paul Masterton: Too many of my constituents will not be getting the tickets they had hoped for this Christmas as a result of mass harvesting by electronic bots. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment, but will she confirm when this new offence will be introduced and when my constituents will see changes?

Karen Bradley: I sympathise greatly with my hon. Friend’s constituents and their concerns. At Christmas in particular, when parents, friends and family are looking to buy tickets for events, it can be very frustrating. That is why we introduced the offence in the Digital Economy Act 2017 and are committed to introducing these changes as quickly as possible, hoping to bring in secondary legislation in the spring.

John Bercow: From Christmas goose to online ticket sales in fewer than 24 hours. I call Mr Clive Efford.

Clive Efford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is no good the Secretary of State coming here and wringing her hands; the Government had plenty of opportunity to put the restrictions in place to prevent the resale of these tickets online. The Government were warned about this and failed to act—small wonder since they had one of these online ticket touts on the board of directors giving them advice. It is time they stood up for consumers.

Karen Bradley: I am slightly confused, Mr Speaker. We changed the law. We did something. We have acted on this and we will introduce the secondary legislation in the spring.

Grenfell Tower Fire

Bob Blackman: What estimate she has made of the amount donated to support the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire; and if she will make a statement.

Tracey Crouch: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government made a statement to the House on Monday that set out the latest position on the £26 million raised in charitable funds, of which £20 million has now been distributed to survivors and next of kin.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she explain the criteria that are being used to distribute this much-needed money to the victims and survivors and whether there are any restrictions on its use by the survivors when they receive it?

Tracey Crouch: I will write to my hon. Friend with the specific details on the criteria. Of the £6 million that is still to be distributed, £2 million is being looked after by the charities for eligible individuals whose claims are in progress or who have not yet submitted a claim. The remaining £4 million will be allocated to longer-term support projects that will benefit the wider community.

Public Funding: Charities and Voluntary Organisations

Mike Amesbury: What steps her Department is taking to increase the number of public funding sources available to charities and voluntary organisations.
Merry Christmas, all.

Tracey Crouch: That warms my heart—thank you.
Charities and voluntary organisations are receiving funding from Government through a number of programmes, including LIBOR fines, the tampon tax and, for youth organisations, the youth investment fund and the iwill fund in partnership with the Big Lottery Fund.

Mike Amesbury: Charities are set to lose a massive £250 million a year in EU funding, but the Government appear to have no plans to replace it. Will the Minister give charities some Christmas cheer and ensure that no charity loses out post-Brexit?

Tracey Crouch: I am discussing with the whole charity sector how we can look more closely at the EU funding that the hon. Gentleman refers to and what we will focus on in future. Those discussions have been taking place for some time, and we are already working with organisations, including in the voluntary sector, on how we will set up the framework.

Steve Reed: The Government have promised to repay the remaining £425 million borrowed from the national lottery to build the Olympic stadium, but at the current rate of repayment they will not pay it back for 30 years. Charities are struggling to house the homeless and feed the hungry this Christmas, and they need that money now. Will the Minister spread a little more Christmas cheer, back the big lottery refund campaign and commit to repaying the money they owe during this Parliament?

Tracey Crouch: We are committed to repaying the funds that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but we are working hard to ensure that our charities across all sectors are well funded. He will be aware that we will be launching a civil society strategy in the new year, which will work across all Departments in Whitehall to ensure that the sector is well recognised and that we continue to fund it so that we get to the heart of the social issues that we face. Furthermore, we will shortly look at what to do with the next tranche of dormant assets, which will go to support many good causes such as he refers to.

Topical Questions

Pauline Latham: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Karen Bradley: I am delighted to be able to confirm to the House again that the Commonwealth Games Federation has this morning announced that the 2022 Commonwealth games have been awarded to Birmingham. Our commitments now come into effect, and I am sure that the games will demonstrate the very best of global Britain and Birmingham to the world. May I add my congratulations to all involved, particularly Mayor Andy Street and the Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who has done an incredible amount of work with her team to ensure that we secure this important event for Birmingham? Even better, thanks to our announcement yesterday that people have a legal right to demand high-speed internet in their home by 2020, more people across the country will be able to enjoy the games.
On the subject of sporting successes, I would like to congratulate Sir Mo Farah on being named BBC sports personality of the year and the England women’s cricket team—we will not mention any other cricket team—on being named team of the year. I am sure the House will agree that both accolades are very well deserved.
I have spent many an oral questions session telling Members that I cannot comment on the UK city of culture bids, given that one was from my local city, Stoke-on-Trent. So it is a great pleasure to finally be allowed to talk about the city of culture, although I am sad that it is not Stoke-on-Trent. I would like to congratulate Coventry on its success in being named UK city of culture for 2021, and my commiserations go to the unsuccessful cities.
Finally, I would like to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all Members of the House—[Interruption]—even the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), a very merry Christmas. I take this opportunity to thank all the charities working so hard over Christmas and throughout the year for all that they do.

John Bercow: Yes, and I think that the BBC overseas sports personality of the year is the inimitable and unsurpassable Roger Federer, my all-time sporting hero.

Pauline Latham: May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House, including all the members of staff here, a very merry Christmas and a happy new year?
I encourage people to visit places in my constituency such as the Derwent valley world heritage site, which encompasses the Strutt’s mills in Belper, which won the first Great British high street award. We are working towards having a cycle way up the entire Derwent valley, to encourage international visitors to the area. Does my right hon. Friend agree that visitors would have an amazing visit if they came to the Derwent valley and other parts of Derbyshire rather than just staying in London?

Karen Bradley: I have to agree with my hon. Friend. I know that part of the world very well, as I am sure you can imagine, MrSpeaker, and I agree, particularly about the use of cycling to get people to see these incredible parts of our country, the scenery, the UNESCO world heritage sites, and others. However, I would point out that you do not have to go to Derbyshire to enjoy the Peak district; you can also enjoy it in Staffordshire.

Rosena Allin-Khan: Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to one and all, in particular my opposite number, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who it is a pleasure to serve opposite.
The Gambling Commission’s annual report confirmed that children as young as 11 are being introduced to forms of online gambling. The Gambling Act 2005 was introduced before many young gamers could trade in loot boxes. Right now, there is nothing to stop a child gambling away money for virtual prizes in video games. Can the Minister please tell me when the Government will look to close this loophole and put an end to loot box gambling?

Tracey Crouch: May I extend my Christmas festive wishes to the hon. Lady and to all those on the Opposition Front Bench? She raises an important point. The recent report by the Gambling Commission was an incredibly useful document. We are doing all we can to protect children and vulnerable people from the harm and risk of gambling. We are working with the Gambling Commission on these issues. It keeps the matter very much under review. It is an emerging issue in the market, but the Gambling Commission has strong powers to regulate gambling, and the convergence between gambling and video games is being monitored quite closely.

Robert Jenrick: The opening of the Louvre in Abu Dhabi by President Macron last month demonstrated the power of culture to drive foreign and trade policy, but we all know that the glories of France are as nothing compared with the glories of our own country, so what can the Secretary of State and her Ministers do to advance British cultural diplomacy around the world, and might one element of that be our excellent cultural protection fund?

John Glen: My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. The cultural development and cultural protection funds are both top of my list. The cultural protection fund has done an enormous amount internationally. I would draw his attention to what has been highly successful diplomacy, including the V and A opening a new gallery in Shekou design centre in China earlier this month, which is one example of the advances we have made.

Chi Onwurah: This week the German competition authority ruled that the collection and use of data by Facebook was abusive. Does the Minister agree?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady raises an important question. Of course, competition rules are rightly decided on independently in this country,  so she would not expect the Government to express a definitive view one way or the other, but the question she raises is a very interesting one.

John Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that estimates show that something like over 1 million people will be watching their festive TV and films using illegal streaming devices? Does she agree that this does huge damage to our creative industries, and will she look at what more can be done to tackle it?

Karen Bradley: My right hon. Friend again speaks with great knowledge and experience. He has very wise words for us—one very wise man in the Chamber at Christmas time is a start—and his points are well made. We want to ensure that content is protected and that those who provide and produce it are able to make the money that they should rightly make from it. We are working with the creative industries as part of the sector deal in the industrial strategy on how to protect content in the most effective way.

Paul Sweeney: I am sure the Minister agrees that a vital aspect of creating a thriving and exciting community for all parts of the UK is safeguarding our national built heritage. In my city of Glasgow, the Glasgow Building Preservation Trust, of which I am a member, the renovation of the Fairfield Heritage Centre, in which I am involved, and the Springburn winter gardens project in my constituency could be threatened as we come out of the European Union, as European regional development funding is unavailable to safeguard these heritage projects. Can the Minister guarantee that any funding available to these projects will be safeguarded when European Union funding is no longer available?

John Bercow: Order. Just as a general piece of advice to the House, may I say that the best way to cope with the additional time pressure in topical questions is not to blurt out the same number of words at a more frenetic pace, but to blurt out fewer words?

John Glen: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all my colleagues in the Department are working very hard to make sure that all funding is protected, as far as possible, beyond the changes following Brexit.

Kirstene Hair: As the Secretary of State is aware, Dundee city has put together a transformative bid to be the European city of culture. I desperately want Dundee—its bid will have clear benefits for all of Tayside—and the other cities to have a chance to test their bids. May I urge my right hon. Friend to find an alternative way of taking forward this contest so that all the time, money and, most importantly, vision for Dundee is not put to waste?

Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend has been an absolute stalwart in campaigning for Dundee, both before the very disappointing announcement by the European Commission and since, and in finding a way of recognising the work that has been done. Dundee should be congratulated: it made a bid for city of culture in 2017, when Hull was given the award, and since then, the same team has worked together and really built up the  Dundee waterfront, with the new V&A coming next year. We are working with Dundee and the other cities to find a way through this, but I once again commend my hon. Friend for her incredible work in promoting the bid.

Ian Lucas: The Prime Minister herself referred to allegations of police misconduct in her correspondence with the former First Secretary of State last night. Is it not high time that the Secretary of State commenced this unfinished business, and honoured the promise of a previous Conservative Prime Minister to get Leveson 2 under way?

Karen Bradley: We have consulted on Leveson, and we will release the responses and our response to the consultation in due course. We are currently having conversations with all those involved to make sure we follow the proper process that is required before we can release the figures.

Mims Davies: I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group on commercial radio. Will the Minister update the House on the long-awaited but positive deregulation plans announced this week? Commercial radio has long been struggling with outdated, old-fashioned restrictions, meaning that the industry has been unfairly treated.

Matthew Hancock: This week, we published the response to the consultation, which was incredibly warmly received. We will remove over 100 measures in the very outdated legislation on commercial radio to free up commercial radio stations to support their communities and to deliver for their audiences in the best way they see fit.

Stephen Timms: On the Minister’s current consultation on reducing the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals,  will she place in the Library the Treasury’s estimate of the fiscal impact of each of the four options being consulted on?

Tracey Crouch: The impact assessments, which we published alongside the Government consultation document on 31 October, have already been placed in the Library. I hope that answers the question posed by the right hon. Gentleman.

Robert Courts: The residents of West Oxfordshire have welcomed the recent announcement by the district council and Gigaclear on the roll-out of broadband. Will the Minister join me in pressing for real progress in 2018 not only on broadband, but on mobile signals, with which so many villages suffer problems, including in my constituency?

Matthew Hancock: Oh, yes. Tell me about it. My hon. Friend is completely spot-on. I pay tribute, at this Christmastime, to his personal leadership locally in delivering better connectivity across West Oxfordshire.

Danielle Rowley: Members on both sides of the House may enjoy many festive films over the Christmas period. The Secretary of State will be aware that there are plans for a new film studio in my  constituency, but will she do everything possible to ensure that that studio and creative industries across the UK flourish post-Brexit?

Karen Bradley: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. The creative industries are a real UK success story. They are growing much faster than the rest of the economy, and they make up a significant proportion of our economic value and our power in the world. We have a brilliant film industry in the UK, and I urge all hon. Members, if they have not yet done so, to go and see “Paddington 2” and “Star Wars” this Christmas, as they are both British-made films. I also welcome the initiative in her constituency. I assure her that we are working closely with the creative industries to make sure they are on the same secure footing post-Brexit as they are today.

Thomas Tugendhat: Since we are focusing on “Paddington 2” I should announce an interest because we are going this weekend—please don’t tell my son! “Paddington 1”, which we intend to watch on catch-up the day before, will be problematic because while some people are enjoying fibre lines and some have copper, we in some parts of Kent appear to have a hemp line that connects us to the rest of the internet.

Matthew Hancock: I am pretty sure that my hon. Friend’s son does not watch Parliament TV, so his secret should be safe—[Interruption.] Well he certainly does not watch it yet. My hon. Friend makes the point that we need decent connectivity everywhere, and the Government are bringing in the universal service obligation to ensure that decent broadband can be available to everybody, fulfilling our manifesto commitment and delivering that by 2020.

Ronnie Cowan: Last week the Gambling Commission issued a report that highlighted that 80% of young people aged between 11 and 16 have seen gambling on television, 70% on social media, and 66% on websites. Does the Minister agree that more action must be taken to educate young people positively about the risks of gambling, as that could help them to avoid gambling-related harm later in life? A statutory levy on bookmakers could go a long way to funding that education.

Tracey Crouch: The quick answer is yes, and GambleAware will lead a responsible gambling advertising campaign as part of the consultation that we publish.

Carolyn Harris: May I say, Mr Speaker, that flamboyant scarves have just as much place in the Chamber as flamboyant ties? I congratulate the Minister on the work she has put into securing the stakes and prizes review, but will she make strong representations to the Treasury about the associated consequences of problem gambling? Mental health issues and antisocial behaviour costs the public purse more than £1.2 billion annually, and the reduction in stakes will help not only the individual concerned, but society in general.

Tracey Crouch: It will not surprise the hon. Lady to learn that we regularly make strong representations to the Treasury on a number of issues, of which gambling is one. The gambling consultation is a live document,  and I encourage people to take part in it and make their representations. We are aware of recent reports about problem gambling and its cost and impact on society.

Thangam Debbonaire: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Given that we are not allowed to talk about what is in the Brexit sectoral analyses over the road at 100 Parliament Street, will the Secretary of State say what is not in them in relation to the creative industries?

Karen Bradley: I do not think there is anything that is not in there. The creative industries work with us, and these are sectoral analyses that set out the analysis we have made as Government, working with the industry. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady at Christmastime if she feels that she is missing something, and I hope that when Christmas comes it will provide everything she is looking for.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Attorney General was asked—

Prisoner Voting

Nusrat Ghani: What plans the Government have to implement the agreement reached by the Council of Europe on prisoner voting in the UK.

Jeremy Wright: On behalf of the Law Officers may I take this early opportunity to wish all Members and staff of the House a very merry and, of course, lawful Christmas?
I very much welcome the decision by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to support our proposals on prisoner voting. We hope to complete implementation of those proposals by the end of next year, and we have agreed to provide an update on progress to the Council of Europe on 1 September.

Nusrat Ghani: I thank the Minister for his response, and I am pleased that an agreement has finally been reached to settle what has been a long-running dispute between ourselves and the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm to me and my constituents that it remains Government policy that convicted offenders detained in prison should not be allowed to vote, and that the recent agreement will not start us off on a slippery slope?

Jeremy Wright: Yes, and it is important that the Government comply with the judgment of a Court whose jurisdiction we have accepted. As my hon. Friend says, however, it is equally important that we stick to the clear view of this House and those beyond it that convicted prisoners should not vote from their cells, and they will not do so.

Jim Shannon: Will the Attorney General outline how many prisoners the extension will apply to and what type of short-term licences will make them eligible to vote?

Jeremy Wright: The extension will apply to prisoners released on temporary licence. We think it will affect something like 100 prisoners—so, very few.

Jermaine Baker

David Lammy: What the timetable is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to complete her review of the charging decision in relation to the fatal shooting of Jermaine Baker; and if he will make a statement.

Jeremy Wright: The Crown Prosecution Service is very conscious that the family of Jermaine Baker is waiting to hear the outcome of the review of the charging decision in relation to his death. Senior counsel has been instructed to advise on the case and the CPS anticipate that a final decision will be reached early in the new year.

David Lammy: I am very grateful to the Attorney General for that answer. He will understand that in a democracy there is nothing more serious than death as a result of police contact. This case has caused tremendous concern across my constituency and beyond in the wider black community. It is a very important decision and a number of lawyers up and down the country think, following the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s address, that this matter should come before a jury. I want it to be clear that the decision will be looked at very closely indeed by the wider country.

Jeremy Wright: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says. May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for his advocacy on behalf of the family? He will understand, however, that the decision was taken initially at the highest levels of the Crown Prosecution Service. Because of that, and because of the victims’ right to review process, it is right that external counsel is brought in to advise. That is taking the decision extremely seriously. That will mean, as he has already discovered, that the decision takes a little longer, but I think it is right that full attention is paid to that decision and he will hear about it in due course.

Bob Neill: The charging process requires full and wholly objective analysis of all material held. I am sure the Attorney General will agree that the same applies to disclosure if charges are brought. Recent high-profile cases, together with the joint inspection report of the criminal justice agencies, have highlighted what the Attorney has called appalling failures in disclosure by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The Criminal Law Solicitors Association, in a review of its members, found the same. Given its significance, will the Attorney General ensure that the review he is carrying out, as announced by the Prime Minister, looks not just at the working practices but at the professional culture and the independence and objectivity of the Crown Prosecution Service in these matters? I add in parenthesis that I note it was an independently instructed member of the Bar, Mr Jerry Hayes, who was responsible for highlighting the clear failure of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police in this case.

John Bercow: It would be of great benefit to the House if there were placed in the Library without delay a copy of the just-delivered lecture by the hon. Gentleman.

Jeremy Wright: Picking up on my hon. Friend’s last point first, he is right to highlight that all that went wrong in this case, and there was a great deal, highlighted what is good about the criminal justice system as well as what went wrong. We owe a debt of gratitude to those involved in the system, in whatever capacity, who exercise their judgment in such cases. That applies, of course, to this particular counsel.
On my hon. Friend’s wider point, he knows, because I have said it before, that my view is that these were indeed appalling failures of the criminal justice system. We need urgently to understand what went wrong in these particular cases, but we also, as he says, need to look more broadly at the question of disclosure, which has been an issue for some time. It relates to what people know they should be doing and how much information they are prepared to take account of, but it also relates to the challenges we face from a very large amount of electronic material and a very large number of cases. The systems need to be fit for purpose and  the review I am undertaking will seek to ensure that they are.

Public Legal Education

Nigel Huddleston: What steps he has taken to promote public legal education in the last 12 months.

Jo Churchill: What steps he has taken to promote public legal education in the last 12 months.

Thomas Tugendhat: What steps he has taken to promote public legal education in the last 12 months.

Robert Buckland: In July I launched a public legal education panel to support and drive forward legal education initiatives. Bringing together key organisations will mean a more joined-up approach to PLE, and will ensure that more people can reap the benefits of the good work that is being done. The panel is currently combining its resources to map the provision of, and need for, PLE around the country.

Nigel Huddleston: Does the Solicitor General agree that there is a particular need to enhance understanding of the law relating to social media? What is being done to enhance that understanding, especially among young people?

Robert Buckland: I know from my hon. Friend’s professional career in this field that he knows more about it than many other Members. He will be glad to know that, through programmes such as the Lawyers  in Schools initiative, young people are being taught about the dos and don’ts of social media because of  the growing problem of offences being perpetrated  through it. I have seen that great work at first hand on many occasions.

Jo Churchill: One third of the population experience civil justice cases, and nearly two thirds are unaware of basic legal rights and concepts. Minor legal challenges are commonplace, but, owing to a gap in public knowledge, many cases go unchallenged. What specific steps is the Crown Prosecution Service taking to reach the “harder to reach”—vulnerable people with physical and mental issues, and also the elderly, who are particularly vulnerable to scams?

Robert Buckland: As the hon. Lady says, there is a wide range of people with vulnerabilities. I am glad to say that the CPS is doing some excellent work, especially in the field of hate crime. The packs that it produces for schools in particular, dealing with disability, race, religion and LGBT issues, are being downloaded and used by schools in regions throughout the country, including the hon. Lady’s region. They are designed to teach students about the nature, effects and consequences of this type of crime, and have a strong anti-bullying focus which encourages young people to become active citizens.

Thomas Tugendhat: I welcome the work that my hon. and learned Friend has done on public legal education. I also welcome the work done by Citizens Advice in such places as Edenbridge in Kent. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree, however, that the spread of contract law through every clickable website and every app that is downloaded means that the emphasis must now be on legal education throughout people’s lives, not just in schools but through general services as well?

Robert Buckland: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who, in the last Parliament, chaired the very first all-party parliamentary group on public legal education. He shares my passionate desire to enable young people in particular to understand that when they buy a mobile phone they sign a contract, and thus enter into legal obligations at a very early age. It is our duty to try to educate, encourage and support them in order to prevent some of the legal problems that they might encounter.

Barry Sheerman: As the Solicitor General knows, this is one area in which ignorance is not bliss. So many of our constituents all over the country suddenly have to know something about the law for a short period of their lives, but the level of knowledge is very poor indeed. Could not our further education colleges provide some help?

Robert Buckland: I can see a role for local practitioners. Lawyers could work with FE colleges as they currently do with many schools. What the hon. Gentleman has described is what I call “just in time” public legal education, which helps people with immediate crises. I am also interested in what I call “just in case” PLE, which is all about early intervention and prevention, but he is absolutely right to identify those issues.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all Members and staff a very happy Christmas?
Public legal education is also important in giving victims the confidence to come forward. This week  the Attorney General published data on the use of   complainants’ sexual history in the most serious sex trials. He also announced the provision of training. When will that training be available?

Robert Buckland: May I add my compliments of the season to those of the hon. Gentleman?
The training is available now, and is ongoing. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the current structure of the law has been in existence for the best part of 20 years, and in my own professional experience it is used rigorously. It must be used rigorously, so that future complainants and victims of this appalling crime can be confident first that inappropriate questions will not be asked, and secondly that they will not be ambushed in court in an inappropriate way.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The data collection exercise has been necessary because we do not systematically collect data in every case. Could we consider doing that, and also recording the reasons why judges grant such applications or not, as the case may be? Would that not increase confidence in the process?

Robert Buckland: I can confirm that that data will be collected. This issue came to my attention when both the Attorney General and I wanted a widespread number of cases to be examined. It will be done in a more thorough way so that we have up to date and accurate data on this important issue.

Returning British Jihadists

Philip Hollobone: How many British jihadists (a) have been prosecuted and (b) are being considered for prosecution since returning from Syria or Iraq.

Jeremy Wright: There is no specific offence related to returnees from Syria or Iraq as they can be prosecuted for a range of offences, but I can tell my hon. Friend that 97 people were charged with a terrorism-related offence in the year ending September this year, and as of last month 30 have been prosecuted and found guilty and a further 65 are awaiting prosecution.

Philip Hollobone: British jihadists who go abroad to fight Her Majesty’s armed forces are traitors and should be prosecuted for treason. My understanding is that the reason why they are not is that an official declaration of war has not been made against ISIS. Given that, should we not take away the nationality of these people so that they are not allowed back into the country in the first place, and if they are allowed back in, should not all of them be prosecuted and awarded the maximum sentences?

Jeremy Wright: We do prosecute wherever we can, and, of course, the appropriate place for some of these individuals to be brought to justice is the countries where their crimes are committed. On allowing them back into this country, as my hon. Friend may know, this country, as other countries, has an international law obligation to take back its own citizens. Where people have dual citizenship, it is feasible to take away their citizenship, and the Government do on occasion pursue the opportunity to do so, but we cannot leave people without a state.

Graham Jones: The Secretary of State for Defence has suggested that all terrorists should be killed. Is it not important that the UK is seen as upholding the Geneva convention?

Jeremy Wright: That certainly is important. What my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was saying, echoing his predecessor, was that those who choose to fight with Daesh put themselves at risk, but let me make the legal position clear: every country, including this one, is entitled to defend itself from acts of terrorism, and where an attack is either present or imminent, and where it is necessary or proportionate to do so, this country can, and on occasion will, use force, including lethal force, to defend ourselves.

Serious Fraud Office

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: What the Government’s plans are for the future of the Serious Fraud Office.

Jeremy Wright: The Serious Fraud Office does vital work in tackling some of the most serious instances of fraud, bribery and corruption. The SFO will continue, as an independent organisation, to conduct its own investigations and prosecutions of some of the most serious and complex economic crime, and a recruitment campaign is now under way for its next director.

John Bercow: Sir Desmond Swayne.

Desmond Swayne: rose—

John Bercow: So attentive was I to the words of the Attorney General that I failed to realise that we have not yet heard the supplementary question. Let’s hear the fellow: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: Merry Christmas to you as well, Mr Speaker.
I am grateful to the Attorney General for his response about the Government’s plans for the future of the SFO. However, following the Home Secretary’s written statement last week, will the Attorney General clarify how the SFO will continue to operate free from ministerial interference when tasked to investigate by the National Crime Agency?

John Bercow: My apologies to the hon. Gentleman.

Jeremy Wright: We demonstrate here that no one is overlooked at Christmas.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the Home Secretary’s announcement was that on occasion tasking powers will be used by the NCA to ask the SFO to investigate particular matters. I suspect that they will be used very rarely, and they can be used only with the consent both of the Home Secretary and of me; and I do not expect that this will compromise the SFO’s independence in any way. Indeed, the Solicitor General and I are assiduous in ensuring that, both in choice of cases to investigate and in decisions to prosecute, the independence of the director of the SFO is preserved, and it still will be.

Desmond Swayne: Can it be forthcoming for the victims who have reported these serious frauds but then hear absolutely nothing?

Jeremy Wright: That should not happen, but I know that my right hon. Friend will recognise that these are, by their nature, complex investigations and that it can take the SFO a large amount of time to get through all the relevant material in order to make a judgment. If he has a specific case in mind, I am sure that he will let me know so that I can look into it.

Tony Lloyd: Serious fraud in this country is well investigated, because we have  the right frameworks, investigatory bodies and legal processes to do that, but that does not apply to the mass-based fraud that leaves many of our fellow citizens feeling badly let down by the judicial process. Is it not time we began to look at what can be done to improve the definition of volume crime?

Jeremy Wright: I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman, and his experience as police and crime commissioner will underline what he has just said. We need to do more, and we are. There is a joint fraud taskforce, as he may know, which involves not just  the criminal justice agencies but the banks and other organisations. In addition, the Home Secretary has announced the creation of the National Economic Crime Centre, which will do a better job of co-ordinating our activities against economic crime of all kinds.

Knife Crime

Mike Amesbury: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on tackling knife crime.

Robert Buckland: I am a member of the inter-ministerial group on ending gang violence and exploitation, which meets regularly to discuss the reduction of gang-related crimes such as knife crime. In October, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that a serious violence strategy would be published in the early new year, and I regularly discuss the Crown Prosecution Service’s contributions to that strategy with ministerial colleagues.

Mike Amesbury: The Guardian project, “Beyond the blade”, states that national data on the number of children and teens killed by knives in any given year is not publicly available. Will the Solicitor General explain why?

Robert Buckland: I would be interested to know more about that, because I am particularly keen to ensure that the reporting and recording of knife crime are improved. We are seeing a rise in the number of reported cases because the police are recording them more accurately, and there is no doubt a problem in certain parts of the country where knife crime is rising, particularly here in London. I would be happy to talk further with the hon. Gentleman to explore a way forward to ensure that we have as much information as possible about this appalling crime.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: A question, perchance, of fewer than 20 words? I call Mr Bob Blackman.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his answers, but is it not the truth that if we stop people acquiring and carrying knives in the first place, knife crime will cease?

John Bercow: Splendid!

Robert Buckland: I will try to respond with similar brevity. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about prevention, and we are consulting on further restrictions on the online sale of knives to under-18s, and on tightening up the law on the possession of knives in educational institutions other than schools.

Gavin Newlands: I wish a happy Christmas and a good new year to you and your family, Mr Speaker, and to Members and staff across the House.
Knife crime is still a big problem in Scotland, but of the 35 children and teenagers killed as a result of knife crime in the UK so far this year, none was in Scotland. Does the Solicitor General agree that in his and his  Cabinet colleagues’ efforts to reduce knife crime, they would do well to look at the work of Police Scotland’s violence reduction unit, which has helped to oversee a 69% decline in the incidence of handling an offensive weapon in a decade?

Robert Buckland: We have a long history in the England and Wales jurisdiction of learning lessons from our friends in Scotland, and I would be interested to explore those particular factors further with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that we can enter into correspondence on that.

Paul Masterton: Will the Solicitor General explain a little bit more about the steps that the Government are taking to stop children and minors being able to purchase knives and other weapons online?

Robert Buckland: As I said earlier, a consultation into the tightening up of the criminal law on the sale of knives online has just closed, and the Government will respond as urgently as possible to it because it is quite clear that we need to take as many measures as possible to make it as difficult as possible for young people to carry these lethal weapons.

Business of the House

Valerie Vaz: Will the Leader of the House please update us on the forthcoming business?

Andrea Leadsom: The business for the week commencing 8 January 2018 will include:
Monday 8 January—Second Reading of the Taxation (Cross-border) Trade Bill.
Tuesday 9 January—Second Reading of the Trade Bill.
Wednesday 10 January—Opposition day (7th allotted day): there will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 11 January—Debate on a motion relating to defence. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 12 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 15 January will include:
Monday 15 January—Second Reading of the Space Industry Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 16 January—Remaining stages of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (day 1).
Wednesday 17 January—Conclusion of remaining stages of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.
Thursday 18 January—Debate on a motion on treatment of small and medium-sized enterprises by RBS Global Restructuring Group, followed by general debate on Holocaust Memorial Day 2018. The subjects for those debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 19 January—Private Members’ Bills.
This morning, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Melbourne as the troubling situation there continues to develop.
I congratulate the city of Birmingham on securing the 2022 Commonwealth games, which is excellent news for the people of the west midlands, and we wish them every success.
Finally, at the end of this busy term, I wish Mr Speaker, colleagues on both sides of the House, all our staff and the staff of the House a very relaxing Christmas and a happy and healthy new year. I am sure that we are all looking forward to hearing Big Ben’s chimes once again as it rings in 2018.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for the future business. I am also pleased about Birmingham getting the Commonwealth games—I have my running shoes on already.
I note that there was no date for the restoration and renewal debate. I know that the Leader of the House listened to the Members from across the House who felt that a Thursday was not an appropriate day because many people have different things to do. As the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is moving to the other place, will she say when the R and R debate is likely to occur? We need to act sooner rather than later. The many people  on the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster worked on the report, but it has taken a long time to get that debate going.
Prime Minister’s questions are becoming more like Prime Minister’s slogans. We have heard “fit for the future”, so, if this is a way to stop her, we say, “Fit for the future with Labour.” Someone needs to update the Prime Minister, because she mentioned sustainable and transformational partnerships in relation to an integrated health and social care system, which she says Labour is opposed to, but of course we are because it is another reorganisation, such as the disastrous Health and Social Care Act 2012, which cost the country £3 billion. The Prime Minister did not mention accountable care organisations, but to whom are they accountable? Last week, I asked the Leader of the House when the Government were intending to lay the relevant regulations before the House, but unfortunately she did not give me an answer, so will confirm that there will be adequate time for a debate and a vote?
Another week means another U-turn or two. On Tuesday, we found out that plans to end the revenue support grant and allow councils to keep 100% of business rates would be put on hold. Not everyone has Oxford Street in their constituency, so we hope the change will end the bizarre policy of councils buying shopping malls. [Interruption.] I do not know why the Whip is chuntering when you asked for no chuntering or murmuring, Mr Speaker. If he would just listen, that would be helpful. The Government are consulting on a fair funding review, and the consultation closes on 12 March. Given that the House is in recess for two weeks over Christmas, will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether the consultation could be extended until the end of March to give people time to respond?
The other U-turn came on Tuesday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) led a Westminster Hall debate on the exclusion of foster carers from being able to claim free childcare for their foster children. Foster carers do a fantastic job for society. I did not understand the policy, but the Minister ended the exclusion and should be congratulated on closing that gap in policy. That is what we would like to see on our Opposition days. We want to work constructively where there are gaps in policy.
I asked the Leader of the House about the sifting committee for statutory instruments, and she indicated that she will propose changes to standing orders when the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has received Royal Assent. If she could do that when the Bill is in the other place, that might be quite helpful. Given the many statutory powers the Government are reserving to themselves, will she confirm through the usual channels, fairly quickly perhaps, that the chair of the committee will be from the Opposition?
May we have a statement on why the Equality and Human Rights Commission is not appointing people because Ministers are vetoing appointments on political grounds? At the moment, the board cannot function. Sarah Veale, the former head of the equality and employment rights department at the TUC, despite being supported by the chair of the board, has not been reappointed. She was told that the decision not to reappoint her was taken because a political adviser at No. 10 had noticed a tweet she had sent disapproving of  some Government policy. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government are not vetoing appointments on grounds of dissent from the Government, and will the Government look again at reappointing Ms Veale? She is highly qualified and supported by the chair.
As the Prime Minister travels to Poland, and given that the EU has just formally advised the other 27 member states that the Polish Government’s legislative programme is putting at risk fundamental values expected of a democratic state, including judicial independence, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister will be raising the rule of law with the Polish Government? Is this the kind of Government our Government are to do trade deals with? Our country played a vital role in drafting, and was the first to sign up to, the European convention on human rights. We promote the rule of law throughout the world.
The Leader of the House mentioned the events in Melbourne. Looking back on the year—from Westminster to Manchester, from London Bridge to Finsbury Park—I think of the families spending their first Christmas grieving for their lost loved ones, including our own Deputy Speaker. Our prayers are with him and his family at this difficult time. I am pleased that, following the statement by Mayor Burnham, the Government, who initially were only going to put £12 million towards Manchester’s public services, will now pay the full £28 million asked for. Yesterday was International Human Solidarity Day. We always see the country come together during disasters and difficult times. We should strive to do that when there are no disasters.
I want to thank the Opposition Chief Whip for all his support and help; my staff and his; the Government Chief Whip, given last week’s vote, for his support; the Leader of the House and her family; the Deputy Leader of the House, who has been so loyal throughout the years under different Leaders of the House; your family, Mr Speaker, and your office in particular; the Clerks; Phil and his team of Doorkeepers; the House of Commons Library; the official reporters; catering and cleaning staff; postal workers; security; and all right hon. and hon. Members and their families.
Finally, I have to do this, Mr Speaker—it is a joke from a Christmas cracker, and I am just trying to set the scene for the future: what do reindeer hang on their Christmas trees? Horn-aments! May I wish everyone a very happy Christmas and a peaceful new year?

Andrea Leadsom: I am sure that the hon. Lady’s joke will resound around many a Christmas table this year. May I particularly join her in sending all our sympathies to the Deputy Speaker and his family? What a terrible tragedy! We are all so sorry. I also want to echo her remarks about human solidarity. We have seen so many examples of amazing solidarity, and yet also, very sadly, too many examples of people allowing their disagreements to splash into violence, vitriol and hatred. We want in this Parliament to be able to air our disagreements and then go and have a cup of tea together. I am always delighted to share a cup of tea with her, and I certainly wish her and her family a very happy Christmas.
The hon. Lady asks when the R and R debate will be scheduled. As I said last week, I can confirm that, following representations from Members from across  the House not to have the debate on a Thursday, I am working with the Chief Whip and through the usual channels to find a suitable date.
The hon. Lady asks about accountable care organisations. These are intended to provide more joined-up care, more efficient care and greater productivity, and are something the NHS would value having as a tool at its disposal. That is their purpose. There is nothing else but the intention to make the NHS more effective and productive.
The hon. Lady asks whether the consultation on fairer funding could be ended at the end of March, rather than on 12 March, and I am happy to take that up with the Department for Communities and Local Government. I am sure that if there is no good reason why this cannot be done, DCLG will be sympathetic. On childcare for foster children, I think the whole House is delighted with the progress in this area. We should celebrate that access being provided by the Government.
The hon. Lady asks about the sifting committee. Draft changes to Standing Orders are available on the Order Paper for her and colleagues to look at. The decision about who will make up the committee will be made in due course, through the usual channels.
The hon. Lady asks about appointments to the Human Rights Commission. Obviously, these decisions are taken when we are in possession of all the facts about who would provide the right balance in terms of experience, background and so on. I cannot comment on the specifics of what she mentions, but I can assure her that there is scrupulous fairness in the appointments to commissions.
The hon. Lady asks about Poland, and I can tell her that it remains a very strong ally of the UK. Polish fighters in world wars have been enormously supportive to the interests of the United Kingdom, and we should never forget that. However, she rightly points out that the UK upholds international law. We have an absolute commitment to the importance of the rule of law, and the Prime Minister will be making her views on that very clear when she is in Poland.
Finally, I just wish to share the hon. Lady’s all-encompassing good wishes to everyone who works for and in this place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: As per usual, there is extensive interest in the business question, but I simply advise the House that we have two statements to follow and that more than 30 people are seeking to contribute to the two debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. Therefore, there is a premium on brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike, now to be inimitably demonstrated by Sir Peter Bottomley.

Peter Bottomley: The House will welcome the statement by DCLG today on the crack- down on unfair leasehold practices. Will it be possible early in the new year for the Government to announce when there will be a Government debate on the timetable, so that we can stamp out the exploitation, crookery and heartlessness of some freeholders, who have been operating untouched in this field for too long?

Andrea Leadsom: I share my hon. Friend’s concern about some of the practices that have gone on in this area. I am sure that DCLG Ministers will want to come back to this place to provide updates as soon as they are able to do so.

Pete Wishart: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next year. May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all the Members of the House a very merry Christmas? I will not repeat the list given by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), as I am sure she was very extensive in the list of people she wished a happy Christmas to at this time of year.
It is panto season. I suppose every day is like a pantomime in this House, but this year we have our very own version of “Mother Totally Goosed”, where our hero, with repeated warnings of, “He’s behind you,” is transported to a magical land where her dream of unfettered trade deals and transitional arrangements are grown from the magic Brexit beans. No longer assisted by the pantomime dame from “Aladdin”, our hero climbs bravely into the Brexit unknown.
I am sure we are hoping for a peaceful election in Catalonia today. Last time there was a democratic contest there, ballot boxes were seized and people were assaulted by the state for simply voting. It is almost impossible to believe that political leaders in a modern European democracy are contesting this election from prison or exile simply for desiring a particular political outcome for their country.
May we have a debate about tax, so that we can to try to better understand why England is quickly becoming the highest taxed part of the UK? Whereas in Scotland 70% of taxpayers will have their tax reduced, in England, once council tax is factored in, taxpayers in a band D property face a tax increase of more than £100. Perhaps the Scottish Government could give the Government some advice and assistance on how to design a fair tax system based on the best principles of redistribution.
Lastly, at this time of good will and cheer, let us remember that Scottish Tory MPs are not just for Christmas; we are stuck with them, as they plummet in Scottish Westminster opinion polls. Those cute, doe-eyed stoppers of a second independence referendum can grow up to be that unwanted, unloved, forgotten waste of space with nothing better to do than bark about our Government 500 miles away. So remember people of Scotland: if you are thinking about voting Tory in Scotland, have a look at what they grow up to be when they get down here.

Andrea Leadsom: I am not entirely sure what to make of that, but I shall take the hon. Gentleman’s points in the Christmas spirit, which is very important. He clearly feels under threat from my hon. Friends from Scotland because of their excellent work, not only in holding the Scottish Government to account but in representing their constituents in Scotland. It is great for Government Members to see Conservatives at work supporting Scottish constituents.
The hon. Gentleman asked about taxes. He will of course be aware that Government Members, particularly my hon. Friends from Scotland, are disappointed to see  income taxes going up in Scotland, particularly as the Chancellor announced in the Budget an extra £2 billion for Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Catalonia. I think the whole House will join in hoping that today’s election there will be peaceful and respectful. Spain is a key ally to the United Kingdom. As I just said to the shadow Leader of the House, we absolutely uphold the rule of law at all times.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about Brexit trade deals. The Prime Minister has said on any number of occasions, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, that we are determined to get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom and for our EU friends and neighbours as we leave the EU, which will happen on 29 March 2019.

David Amess: There was a Westminster Hall debate on corrosive substance attacks yesterday, but will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on new types of crime such as moped gangs and acid attacks? This depressing trend seems to show that the law and sentencing guidelines are not fit for purpose.

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises a very worrying issue. We are determined to put a stop to this new type of crime. The Home Office has been working closely with a number of partners, including the motorcycle and insurance industries and the police, to develop an action plan. We will review progress early in the new year.
On acid attacks, the Government are consulting on new legislation that would include the prohibition of the sale of harmful corrosive substances to under-18s, and the Home Secretary intends to put sulphuric acid on the list of regulated substances. It is a big challenge. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend is pleased that traditional crimes are decreasing, thanks to the excellent efforts of our law enforcers, but we must and will react quickly and effectively to modern crimes.

Ian Mearns: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for advertising the wares of the Backbench Business Committee for the new year, particularly the intention to have a six-hour debate on defence, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), on the first Thursday back after the recess.
It is Christmas, and we should add to the extended list that we heard from the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). Christmas is a time for forgiveness, so let us extend a warm and merry Christmas to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. IPSA is indeed the founder of our feast, in a strange sort of way, so let us extend a merry Christmas to its staff at this time of good wishes.
May I extend an invitation to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Leader of the House? Next year, between June and September, Gateshead and Newcastle will be hosting the Great Exhibition of the North. I am delighted to invite you both to visit Gateshead and Newcastle during that period.

Andrea Leadsom: I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you and I would be delighted to do that. I have really enjoyed previous trips, particularly to Gateshead. It is   a fabulously vibrant place with fabulous views. There are some really tall buildings that offer enormous roofscape views. It is fabulous, so I shall certainly take up the hon. Gentleman’s offer.
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention that important defence debate on 11 January. It will give many Members who have wanted to discuss defence the chance to air their views.
I share in the hon. Gentleman’s wishing IPSA staff a merry Christmas; may they have a successful and happy 2018.

Anne Marie Morris: It is increasingly clear that the health and social care needs of rural communities diverge very significantly from those of urban communities. Like me, does the Leader of the House welcome the creation of the National Centre for Rural Health and Care and the appointment of the excellent chairman, Richard Parish, who has vast international and local experience? Can we have a debate in Government time on the unique pressures that rural health and social care providers face in recognition of the changes that we need in funding and structure?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is right to raise that important issue. Rural areas do face unique pressures. Challenges raised are often around barriers to access, including rural transport and urgent and emergency care. She will be aware that dwellers in rural areas often enjoy better health than those in urban areas, but she may wish to apply for an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate to discuss this very important matter further.

Louise Haigh: Members across the House will have been horrified to see the amount of plastic in our seas after watching “Blue Planet” this year. Will the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, make it your new year’s resolution to make Parliament plastic free in 2018?

Andrea Leadsom: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I, too, was glued to “Blue Planet” and the issues that it raised. As Environment Secretary, I was delighted to be able to announce the litter strategy, looking at how we can reduce the plastics in our seas. The current Environment Secretary has just now signed the commitment to banning microbeads from face washes and other products. This Government have done more than any other to try to clamp down on waste plastics getting into our marine areas, and we will continue to do everything possible.

Robert Jenrick: One of the farcical stories of Newark’s 2017 is Network Rail’s continual failure to man the barriers at Newark Castle station, so it is a good job that Santa will be arriving through the air on a sleigh, because otherwise he may not even be able to get into the town. The latest instalment in this pantomime was that Network Rail’s operatives failed to recognise that the barriers should be closed from 10 pm in the evening, overnight, and misread it as 10 am, closing the entire town off for Saturday shopping at Christmas. Will the Leader of the House give us an  early Christmas present and pick up the phone to the chief executive of Network Rail to give him a good telling off?

Andrea Leadsom: As ever, my hon. Friend represents his constituents extremely well. He may wish to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise that particular issue.

Chris Bryant: Happy St Thomas’s day, Mr Speaker—to be precise. I am delighted that the Leader of the House has said that we are moving the date for the debate on restoration and renewal, because it is better that the whole House should be able to come to a proper decision. May I just say to her that I can help her with this as I have found time on 15 January when we can do it? The Second Reading of the Space Industry Bill took less than two hours in the House of Lords, so I do not see why it should take any more time here, and we can use the rest of the day to do R and R and come to a proper decision. Incidentally, IPSA has said that, next year, if Members want staff to be paid before Christmas, they should all say “aye” today, and it will do it properly next year.

Aye!

Andrea Leadsom: I am very grateful, as I am sure are the Chief Whip and the shadow Chief Whip, for the hon. Gentleman’s advice on how to schedule the business, but he will appreciate that the space Bill is an extremely important piece of legislation that will create highly skilled jobs for the future and provide a huge opportunity for the United Kingdom and it needs to be given a proper hearing in this place.

Mark Pritchard: Can we have a debate on Made in Britain? Does the Leader of the House share my concern that the new British passport from 2019, a black passport, not a purple one, could be designed and printed in Germany—made in Berlin rather than made in Britain?

Andrea Leadsom: We all support the UK’s stance as a global free-trading nation, but, at the same time, we recognise that Britain has a huge amount to offer in terms of our manufacturing, our food and drink and all manner of services that we provide to the world, and we can compete on a level playing field.

Diana R. Johnson: As we come to the end of Hull’s first year as city of culture, may I pay tribute Rosie Millard and Martin Green, who have led the city of culture organisation and put on so many wonderful events this year? The fact that we have had 3.5 million visitors to Hull speaks for itself. Can we please have a debate about the legacy for Hull coming out of city of culture? Coventry will be city of culture 2021, and we need to make sure that we get the arts funding out to the regions so that it is not concentrated in London.

Andrea Leadsom: I congratulate the hon. Lady on  her support for Hull’s superb time as city of culture, and on her enthusiasm for Coventry’s. I recommend that she seeks a Westminster Hall debate to focus on these important points. I am sure that Ministers will be interested to hear her views.

Martin Vickers: There is growing concern among residents and business owners in Cleethorpes, particularly in St Peter’s Avenue and the High Street, about the growing number of vagrants in the area. That concern spilled over at a public meeting last week. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time so that we can discuss the response of the various agencies, how they can deal with the problem and how they can deal with those who are genuinely homeless?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises an issue of great concern to us all. The Government are committed to eliminating rough sleeping. We are investing more than £1 billion pounds to 2020 in order to tackle homeless and rough sleeping. For example, we have a homelessness reduction taskforce and a rough sleeping advisory panel to focus minds right across Government on what more we can do. We have £20 million for schemes that support people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness to get secure tenancies, and £28 million of backing for Housing First pilots. It is vital that local authorities take advantage of the funding available to them, and that we all focus on tackling homelessness and rough sleeping.

Paula Sherriff: I send my best Christmas wishes to all, but Christmas can be a very tough time of year for some people. At the Samaritans reception that was held here this week, a very simple request was made—that all MPs put the Samaritans number on their out-of-office message. As many of our offices will be closed over the Christmas period, at least that number would then be available if anybody did contact us in an emotional crisis. I have already done this. Will the Leader of the House join me in asking the MPs present whether they feel that they could do this too?

Andrea Leadsom: That is a lovely idea. I will certainly be delighted to do that myself. Indeed, I have made a short YouTube clip explaining how people can get hold of me if there is no answer from the office. The hon. Lady is right that the issue of loneliness and people who are desperate for urgent help must be addressed—never more so than at this time of year when that help can really matter a great deal to people. I commend her suggestion.

Bob Blackman: The London Assembly this week announced the publication of a report that shows that there are 9,000 sheds in London alone that are accommodating people in back gardens and unsavoury areas. That is council tax that is not being collected and landlords who are exploiting people who have nowhere to live. Can we have a debate in Government time on this nationwide problem so that we can crack down on this disgraceful activity?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is right to raise this pretty shocking statistic. He will be aware that the number of statutory homeless people is lower than it was at any time in 2010. Nevertheless, there is a lot  more to be done. We must clamp down on rogue  landlords and those who seek to abuse people who do not have access to safe rented accommodation or other  accommodation. I share my hon. Friend’s view that  the Mayor of London should seek to put a stop to this activity.

Thangam Debbonaire: Will the Leader of the House please press for Government time, during the process of the restoration and renewal debate, in which we can debate how to make both Houses of Parliament truly accessible for people with disabilities, particularly for those one in 100 people on the autistic spectrum?

Andrea Leadsom: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for all you have done for those with disabilities and to try to make Parliament more accessible. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the possibility of the House debating easier access once we get into the R and R debate.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Last week in The Times and other papers, there was a very good article by a former special adviser to David Cameron and George Osborne about corruption in local government. I asked for a debate last week; I am asking again. We now have firm evidence that there are problems, and I would like a general debate in this place if possible.

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is of great concern to him, and I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise it specifically with Ministers.

Vernon Coaker: Two young girls from my constituency, Amy and Ella Meek, are coming to Parliament today to meet the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. They are Kids Against Plastic. These young girls are fantastic campaigners. Given the urgency of this issue—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) said, we have all been moved by “Blue Planet”—they want us to do even more. Could the Leader of the House arrange for the Environment Secretary to come to Parliament and make a statement so that we can all contribute to trying to do something about this issue?

Andrea Leadsom: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, the Meeks, on taking the great step of coming here to make their views known? It is fantastic when people choose to do that, and it is important for young people to take such an interest in their environment. I can tell the hon. Gentleman’s constituents that as a result, for example, of cutting the use of plastic bags by 83%, there are 9 billion fewer plastic bags now being used. We have doubled the maximum litter fines to try and discourage litter on land, which so often ends up in our seas. We have also just finished consulting on our proposals to reduce plastic, metal and glass litter, which included consulting on reward and return schemes for drinks containers. All these things are important, and I absolutely encourage the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to keep up their campaigning work.

Douglas Ross: Can we have a statement to this House on the recent report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland into the Scottish   National party’s plans to merge the British Transport police into Police Scotland? That report highlighted that issues such as terms and conditions and pension arrangements need to be discussed sooner rather than later. Given that we are less than 16 months away from full integration, does the Leader of the House agree that that shows how poorly the SNP has handled this? In fact, it might be better if it abandoned its plans altogether.

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises a very important matter, and he is right to hold the Scottish Government to account. I encourage him to seek a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate so that he can raise this with Ministers to see what can be done.

David Linden: My Easterhouse constituent Ibrahim al-Kasharfeh submitted an asylum claim over a year and a half ago, and despite service standards of six months, he still has not been given a decision. May we have a debate in Government time on the process and procedures for asylum claims, because we are clearly not getting them right?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman raises a significant constituency issue, which he is absolutely right to raise. I encourage him to take it up with Home Office Ministers, who I am sure will be keen to look at that specific case.

Edward Leigh: Let us never forget that, in the fight for freedom and justice in the war, Poland lost a quarter of its population.
Closer to home—I am sure the Leader of the House will agree with this—can we please have the debate on restoration and renewal on a substantive amendable motion as soon as possible? The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I have different points of view, but we do think we should get on with this now. In a building such as this, fire is an ever-present risk, and the House needs to come to a conclusion quickly and to get on with the work, particularly on fire doors.

Andrea Leadsom: As I have explained to Members, we have taken representations that the debate should not be on a Thursday, and we are seeking an alternative date as soon as possible.

Tom Brake: Will the Leader of the House make time available for a Cabinet Office debate on the selective application of the ministerial code, so that the Cabinet Office could explain why the Deputy Prime Minister had to go, whereas the Foreign Secretary, who, according to my estimation, has breached sections 1.2a, 7.1 and 8.6, is still with us? Before she responds, however, may I wish her and other Members, as well as you, Mr Speaker, and everyone who helps us here in the House, a merry Christmas and, in the new year, an exit from Brexit?

Andrea Leadsom: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes, apart from the last bit—clearly, I do not share that sentiment at all. He makes some very specific allegations that he should raise with the Cabinet Office directly.

Jeremy Lefroy: May we have an urgent debate on net neutrality in the light of the Federal Communications Commission’s recent decision in the United States?

Andrea Leadsom: I am pleased to say to my hon. Friend that I managed to catch the relevant Minister on this point just before coming into the Chamber. They confirmed that the UK remains committed to the existing laws around net neutrality and will be upholding those laws. However, my hon. Friend may well wish to submit a parliamentary question to have that confirmed to him directly.

Ian Murray: Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, to you and your family, and to all who serve in this House.
May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on the Government’s red lines on Brexit? Two days ago, we heard from the EU chief negotiator that passporting financial services is not possible while the Government insist on their red lines. Tens of thousands of jobs in Edinburgh rely on this.

Andrea Leadsom: I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, as has been said many times, this is a negotiation. I am sure that he will be delighted, as we all are, that we have made progress on to the second part, which is to discuss the free trade arrangements that we want between ourselves and the European Union. These negotiations are under way, and the Government will of course update Parliament and take in Parliament’s views at every opportunity.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I should gently point out that if each Member could ask a short question of one sentence, we could move on in about 10 minutes, and that would be helpful to subsequent debates. Whether that will have any effect, who knows? We will see.

Amanda Milling: This morning, Sergeant Watchman V, the Staffordshire Regimental Association mascot, is being promoted to the rank of colour sergeant. Sergeant Watchman V is a Staffordshire bull terrier. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Watchman, and also his handler, Greg Hedges?

Andrea Leadsom: Of course I am delighted to join in my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm. I gather that Watchman also won the public vote in the Westminster dog of the year competition last year.

Liz McInnes: On 16 November, I asked the Leader of the House for a statement on when the results of the consultation on penalties for causing death by dangerous driving would come before Parliament and be enshrined in law. I wrote to her, as she asked me to do, but since then I have heard nothing. Will she please advise me on what further action I might take?

Andrea Leadsom: I will absolutely look into this if  I have missed something. I am absolutely assiduous about following up on all pledges made in this House, so if I have not followed up in this case, I sincerely apologise and will do so straight after this session.

Lee Rowley: Following the recent experience in my constituency where a planning application for exploratory drilling that will lead to fracking has been declared for non-determination in a highly premature manner, may we have a debate in Government time about whether the planning system is working for these kinds of large applications?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is a strong voice for his constituents, and he is right to raise this matter. An applicant for planning permission can exercise powers under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision to refuse consent, or non-determination. Whether an applicant wishes to exercise that right of appeal is a matter for them. He will appreciate that major shale gas planning decisions will be the responsibility of the national planning regime, so he could raise this with Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers during questions on 22 January.

Paul Flynn: May we have a debate on early-day motion 722?
[That this House believes that the acceptance of a new job with Chinese interests by the previous Prime Minister David Cameron exposes parliamentarians to accusations of promoting their own financial interests in office in order to benefit from them later with lucrative jobs; recalls that David Cameron resisted all pleas to reform the abuses of revolving door that allows former hon. Members to prosper on the basis of insider knowledge unhindered by the impotent watchdog of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and further recalls that the former Prime Minister supported the Chinese-British Hinkley Point project that been condemned as a potential financial calamity by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.]
That might help to remove the most corrupt element in this Parliament whereby three Governments have failed to reform the committee that is supposed to prevent past Ministers from profiting financially from their time in office. Is there not a danger that the country will look at recent affairs and ask, as Chaucer did, “If gold doth rust, what will iron do?”

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman raises what I am sure is a very important point. If he has an EDM, it will be dealt with in the usual manner.

Mims Davies: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the apprenticeship levy? In my constituency, Blaze Construction is working hard to support this process, but has concerns about how it affects its industry and its efforts.

Andrea Leadsom: I know that my hon. Friend shares the Government’s enthusiasm for apprenticeships, of which there have been more than 3 million since 2010. That is fantastic news for young people’s careers and the development of their skills. If she wishes to promote particular issues around the apprenticeship levy, I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can raise the matter directly.

Barry Sheerman: May I send a special Christmas wish to the police who keep us safe in this place? They get overlooked sometimes. Does the Leader of the House agree that is heartrending  to read about a little girl saying, “Father Christmas forgot to come to my house last Christmas”? That is a terrible thing. The Children’s Commissioner has said that there are half a million vulnerable children in our country. Can we have an early debate about the Children’s Commissioner’s report on vulnerable children?

Andrea Leadsom: I fully share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about vulnerable children. We would all like, particularly at Christmas, everything possible to be done to ensure that children have the chance to be with their families and enjoy Christmas. I encourage him to seek a debate on the matter so that all Members can participate.

Nusrat Ghani: Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking postal service workers over this busy Christmas period? Can we have a statement on future support for post offices, especially those in rural constituencies such as mine?

Andrea Leadsom: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in thanking all Post Office workers. They do a fabulous job at this time of year. The issue that she raises is very important, especially to rural communities, so I am pleased that the Government announced yesterday that they are committing up to £370 million in new investment in the post office network for the three years from April 2018.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: Would the Leader of the House agree to have a debate on a national Sikh war memorial in a prime central location in our capital, to commemorate the extraordinary bravery and sacrifices of Sikh soldiers in the service of Great Britain? That includes both world wars, when more than 83,000 turbaned Sikh soldiers laid down their lives and more than 100,000 were injured. To assist her in that, she may have seen early-day motion 708, which already has the support of more than 150—

John Bercow: Well meaning, but far too long.

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the amazing sacrifice of Sikh soldiers, and I share his interest in a memorial. He may well wish to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise that directly with Ministers.

Paul Masterton: Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating my constituent Marsha Gladstone? She received the Points of Light award for her work with the Yoni Jesner Foundation, which was set up in memory of her son, who was killed by a Tel Aviv bus bomb 15 years ago.

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises a very sad story. He is right to seek the warmth of this House for his constituent, and I am very happy to give it.

Kate Green: I hope Parliament will join me in congratulating the UN and the World Federation of the Deaf on declaring an International Day of Sign Languages. May we have a debate on its recognition in UK law?

Andrea Leadsom: I congratulate the hon. Lady on what I am sure was very accurate signing. I am sure that hon. Members would be delighted if she were to seek a Back-Bench debate on this subject.

Nigel Huddleston: As we approach Christmas, our thoughts are often with those whom we have lost during the year. I am sure the thoughts of many of us in the House will therefore be with the family of PC Keith Palmer, who gave up his life while protecting ours. Several months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) suggested that some kind of commemoration, such as a commemorative plaque, should exist on the Parliamentary estate. Can the Leader of the House give us an update on progress?

Andrea Leadsom: Keith Palmer showed huge bravery and courage when he sought to protect our parliamentary community from a terror attack. He was also a father, a husband and a Charlton Athletic fan, and he is now the posthumous recipient of the George medal. The Police Memorial Trust is working with Westminster City Council to erect a memorial stone outside Carriage Gates, and that is something that we will all be pleased to see.

Alan Brown: In terms of the hard work of Scottish Tories, I have submitted written questions asking how many meetings they have had, and when, with police and fire services on the question of VAT. The answer I got was that there are regular policy meetings with hon. Members. I then asked when Scottish Tories last met each one, and I was referred back to the same answer. Will the Leader of the House make a statement explaining how I can actually hold the Government to account and how she will get Ministers to give straight answers?

Andrea Leadsom: I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, in the last few weeks, the Chancellor has seen many hon. Friends every night in the Lobbies. How often the Chancellor comes across his colleagues is really not a matter on which to hold the Government to account.

Tony Lloyd: Will the Leader of the House commit to arranging an early statement on the astonishing and unacceptable threat by the United States ambassador to the United Nations that note will be taken of countries, like our own, opposing the move of the Israeli capital to Jerusalem and that consequences will follow?

Andrea Leadsom: We are aware of Donald Trump’s comments, but the UK’s long-standing position on Jerusalem has not changed. The UK’s position is that status of Jerusalem should be determined through a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and that it should ultimately be the shared capital of the Israeli and Palestinian states.

Martin Whitfield: Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating our community councils, particularly the volunteers who form the foundation of our democracy, and may we have a debate on the role of volunteers in our democracy?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman follows a line of other Members who have sought further discussion on the excellent work of volunteers. I encourage him to seek a Back-Bench debate so that all Members can pay tribute to those who work so hard as volunteers?

Graham Jones: The great northern powerhouse project of course includes the central trans-Pennine corridor. When will the Government facilitate a debate on what they consider a flagship project—in Government time, in this place—so that Members of Parliament can discuss the northern powerhouse?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Government are fully committed to the northern powerhouse. Half a trillion pounds of investment has gone into infrastructure since 2010. The national productivity investment fund is looking to improve infrastructure right across the United Kingdom, and the northern powerhouse has been a big recipient. I encourage him to seek a Westminster Hall debate so that he can put forward further ideas to make it a success.

Patrick Grady: I believe the other customary greeting at this time of year is “May the force be with you”.
May we have a debate on the recruitment policy of the Civil Aviation Authority? A constituent of mine approached me to say he was prohibited from obtaining a medical certificate for a commercial pilot’s licence simply on the grounds that he was HIV-positive. Does the Leader of the House agree that nobody should face unjustifiable discrimination because of their HIV status? I have written to the Transport Secretary, but I have not yet had an answer. May we have a debate on this issue?

Andrea Leadsom: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman. This Government are against discrimination. I encourage him to ask a parliamentary question so that he can get an answer on his specific point.

Chris Elmore: Will the Leader of the House ask a Work and Pensions Minister to make a written statement on the remaining months of the roll-out of universal credit in constituencies in the UK? I received an incorrect answer to a written question on Monday, and I still have not had a response to my oral question in Work and Pensions questions on Monday afternoon.

Andrea Leadsom: If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me on that point, I will take it up with the Department for him.

Gavin Newlands: The publicly owned Royal Bank of Scotland is closing more than one third of its branches in Scotland, including the very busy one in Renfrew in my constituency. May we have a statement on this Government’s abdication of their responsibility to the taxpayers of Scotland in leaving 13 towns with zero bank branches?

John Bercow: A debate on that matter has already been announced, unless my memory is incorrect, but the Leader of the House will in any case give us  her reply.

Andrea Leadsom: Yes, Mr Speaker, there will be a debate on the RBS restructuring group. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about closures, this is a commercial matter, as the Prime Minister has made clear. We are certainly very keen to promote the excellent work of the post office network in providing basic bank account services. He will certainly be aware of the protocols on bank closures that every bank must follow, and he may wish to take this up directly with BEIS Ministers.

Brendan O'Hara: On a similar note, 62 bank branches are closing in Scotland, including in Rothesay, Campbeltown and Inveraray in my constituency. Thus far, the Government have steadfastly refused to get involved, saying that these are commercial decisions, but such an answer is unacceptable. May we have an urgent statement on the bank closure programme in Scotland and how it can be stopped?

Andrea Leadsom: As I said to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), the key point is that decisions about bank closures are commercial ones. Many people are turning away from branch banking to mobile banking. There are protocols for consultations on footfall and so on that must be followed by any bank before it decides to close its doors, but these are ultimately commercial decisions.

Jim Shannon: Earlier this week, militants attacked a Methodist church in Pakistan, killing nine people and wounding dozens of others. The two suicide bombers were stopped at the entrance to the church, but had they managed to get into it, the number of casualties would have been as high as in the 24 November attack on the mosque in Egypt. This attack is especially poignant at Christmas, so will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on the escalating violence in Pakistan and the middle east?

Andrea Leadsom: I think all Members would condemn the sort of violence mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, on which I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate.

INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCE POLICY

Andrea Leadsom: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the independent complaints and grievance policy. I apologise that it is a little long, but I want to give a full account to the House of the progress made.
On 6 November, the Prime Minister convened a meeting of all party leaders to address reports of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment in Parliament. All parties agreed to implement robust procedures to try to change the culture in Parliament, recognising that Parliament can and must set a good example. In her letter to you, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister made clear the need for a new grievance procedure, and a cross-party working group on an independent complaints and grievance policy has been working hard over the past six weeks to consider evidence and draw up recommendations for new procedures. Good progress has been made, and during the recess there will be further discussion and consultation within the parties and among the staff bodies, in order to produce a fuller report in the new year. There are many examples of good employers and professional working practices right across Parliament, and we seek to ensure that that is the case for all.
The working group, chaired by myself on behalf of the Prime Minister, has been made up of two colleagues from Labour, and one each from the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionists, Plaid Cymru and the Green party, as well as the Leader of the House of Lords and the convener of the Cross-Bench peers from the other place. We also have three staff members on the working party representing the Members and Peers’ Staff Association, Unite, and the National Union of Journalists. They have led widespread consultation with staff, to ensure that staff voices have been heard loudly. We have been supported by a secretariat made up of Cabinet Office and parliamentary staff, including the tireless work of Alix Langley, Justine How, and Dr Helen Mott, a leading specialist in sexual assault. They each deserve our enormous thanks for their dedication.
I am also very aware of the active interest that a number of colleagues have taken in this matter, and for them it is a personal campaign to improve the experience of those who work here. I thank them for discussing their thoughts with me, particularly the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Luton South (Mr Shuker), my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller).
The working group has so far met on 11 occasions, and has heard from a wide range of experienced professionals, both in person and through written submissions. Those include the Speakers of both Houses, Professor Sarah Childs, Rape Crisis, the Clerks of both Houses, ACAS, the Parliamentary Commissioners for Standards and the Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Unite, legal experts from the business world, and Health Assured. Importantly, the working group also heard from a number of staff about their views of the culture of Parliament. We are grateful to those who spoke to the group about their experiences, or provided anonymous submissions.
The working group identified three guiding principles for this work. First, Parliament requires an independent process that is separate from the political channels. Secondly, much evidence was taken to support the view that claims of sexual harassment must be dealt with separately from claims of bullying and other types of harassment. Thirdly, structures alone will not change the culture in Parliament and other steps are also needed including—crucially—a human resources service for staff employed by Members, and an expansion of training provision.
As a result of the work of the group, and with the support of the Speaker and the commission, a number of immediate measures have been put in place to increase the level of support available to staff across the estate. First, there will be a new, interim provision of HR support and guidance for the staff of Members, beginning after the recess, while consideration is given to the need for a broader HR service. HR support will also be accessible to Members’ staff working on the parliamentary estate, in constituency offices, and those who are collectively employed by the parties. In addition, new training will be available, addressing the range of needs identified by the working group. That is in addition to the already announced expanded Health Assured helpline, which will be made available to staff of Members across both Houses, and a number of other pass holders across the estate. As you requested, Mr Speaker, individual political party policies and procedures for dealing with bullying and harassment have been published online and are accessible on the parliamentary website.
A great deal has been achieved, but we also have a programme of work planned into the new year. The working group has clearly identified the need for new policies and procedures to tackle bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, which should be available to staff and Members across the estate, and must be independent of the political parties. The proposals that follow are the outcome of substantial evidence taken by the working group and there is strong support from its members. However, further work, evidence-gathering and consultation will be required before we can put new processes in place. They must attract the full support and confidence of staff, MPs and peers across Parliament.
One new policy under consideration by the working group is a new behaviour code to be consulted on, which would apply to all those who work in or for Parliament, including Members, peers and staff, wherever they work. This behaviour code could sit alongside the existing parliamentary codes of conduct, which may themselves require amendment. Another is the procurement of a new independent sexual violence advocate specialist service to provide a confidential helpline and counselling support and advice to those wishing to make disclosures. Such a service would also provide support to complainants in cases of sexual assault, including rape. The service would provide support for complainants to pursue a criminal justice route, or, if they did not wish to go to the police, alternative strictly confidential support. The working group has also taken significant evidence on the need for an independent mediation service to provide a helpline, counselling and investigation into incidents of bullying and intimidation.
Finally, we discussed sanctions. These will of course differ according to the severity of the grievance, and for different individuals across the estate. For lower-level complaints, the range of possible sanctions could include training covering harassment and bullying, a full apology, as well as a review, where appropriate, of the parliamentary pass. In serious cases, further work needs to be carried out to ensure sanctions are appropriate, fair and enforceable. The functions of both the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Standards Committee may need to be strengthened and reviewed to ensure fair representation and confidentiality. Considerable further work needs to be carried out before conclusions can be drawn and, of course, any changes to Standing Orders and to the code of conduct would require decisions by the House.
The working group’s discussions have been underpinned by a persistent theme: there are many examples of excellent employers and working relationships, but there is a real need to improve the overall workplace culture of Parliament. One of the routes to this is proper independent HR support for Members’ staff to minimise the problem of contractual disputes, as identified in one of our core principles. We need to work with the House authorities and staff to consider the best and most appropriate way of delivering this in the long term. We also received a great deal of evidence on the need for voluntary and mandatory training for staff and their employers. This would include proper induction courses for staff employed by Members. While this is not within the terms of reference for the working group, it was made clear to us that enabling better support for employer-employee relationships could significantly improve the working atmosphere and engender a more professional culture. The working group will consider the evidence further.
Mr Speaker, we were grateful for your own contribution to the working group, in which you made it clear that the House of Commons Commission stands ready to do what it needs to do to respond to any proposal from the working group, providing that the proposal combines independence and transparency. We recognise the need both for swift progress and for careful consideration before taking action. Our next steps, therefore, are crucial. The working group will reconvene after the recess to agree on how the work will progress. We will look closely at the policies we have identified as needing further work and consultation, and begin to take further advice and evidence. A number of proposals have been made about how to take our work forward. They range from appointing a special bicameral Select Committee to maintaining a Members and staff cross-party committee. We will consider all ideas carefully, but I want to make it clear that the work of the existing group is ongoing for the time being. We will continue to involve staff, peers and MPs collectively, each step of the way. Excellent progress has been made in a short space of time, Mr Speaker, and I want to express my gratitude for the strong commitment shown by members of the working group, and for the expertise provided by our specialist advisers.
The working group was formed to bring about change. I recognise that change is not always easy, particularly in a place with such long-standing traditions and customs where we live and work in the full glare of the media spotlight, but that cannot be an excuse. We should not rest until everyone working in Parliament can feel safe,  valued and respected. We have a chance now to get this right for everyone on the parliamentary estate, including staff, Members of Parliament and peers. I hope to bring the working group’s final proposals to the House in the new year.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for her leadership of the working group, and I thank all hon. Members for their hard work. I thank everyone who took time to submit evidence,  and everyone who gave oral evidence—including you, Mr Speaker, who gave up your time to attend the hearings—and Lord McFall, who attended on behalf of the Lord Speaker. I am grateful for the commitment of the Speakers of both Houses, and I thank the senior Clerks of both Houses, who were on hand for discussion. I thank those who staffed the secretariat, who responded magnificently, trying to make sense of all our discussions in addition to their other work. They truly represented what is good about the work ethic in the House.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), and the hon. Members for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and, in the other place, Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Hope of Craighead. I also thank staff representatives Emily Cunningham, Max Freedman and Georgina Kester, who attended in addition to doing all their work for Members.
The working party was set up by the Government and leaders of other parties in the wake of reports of sexual harassment in a variety of situations. I want to make the Opposition’s position very clear. I do not think it acceptable that it was misrepresented in the press at the weekend. There is a report, but it is still a draft report, and it should go out to consultation. Normally, the report is agreed and after that the summary can be published.
The group sat for more than four hours on one day, and came up with good, creative solutions, or heads of agreement, which, to some extent, the Leader of the House set out in her statement. Suggestions are still coming in, including some from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday. The issue affects both Houses, and I should like my counterpart, Baroness Smith of Basildon, to be fully informed as she pursues it in the other place. The working group does not come from the House by motion. If we are to see real change it must have the confidence of the House. We need to consult and reflect on the proposals and ensure that they are workable, because we do not want to have to unpick them later. It is vital for members of the party hierarchy—and trade unions that represent staff and may not have had a place in the group—to be consulted.
The Leader of the House suggested a number of ways of protecting people now, in the medium term, and in the longer term. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear to me—and, in a letter, to the Prime Minister—what the Opposition want. First, we want a separate independent sexual harassment adviser and support. We suggest that the sexual adviser should be appointed immediately—they should be independent and qualified to take complainants through the process  until the tender is out, which could be at the end of January—and that a separate helpline should be set up now. In that way, if there are existing cases, people will not feel that they have nowhere to go with their complaints. There must not be a vacuum, and this can easily be done immediately. Will the Leader of the House agree to do it now?
Secondly, we want an independent human resources service for staff. Some Members and staff belong to trade unions, while others say that they do not want to, but joining a union has benefits: unions have expertise and are familiar with employment rights. Given the possible erosion of rights as we leave the EU, there is already concern about the possibility that the working-time directive will be removed, and it is vital for those who are not in a management position to have access to advice and assistance. I know staff representatives have said that they would like such a service, and that they cannot deal with the cases that they currently have. The service should be offered on an equivalent basis to staff of the House.
Thirdly, the current HR support service should be expanded to help Members and senior members of staff understand how to interview and how to ensure good practice in respect of management issues. That would be separate from the service offered to other staff.
There are existing policies, such as the Respect policy, and some of the evidence that we heard suggested that we should build on what we already have. It took the staff of the House 18 months to put the Respect policy together, and we need to use that expertise. There are many other policies and examples of best practice. ACAS says that it is working with a media organisation to produce a policy on sexual harassment. We can use its expertise and adapt it for the House. A working party cannot do that, but it can commission the work.
Mr Speaker, with your swift action Health Assured is now open to all. It has been expanded, so that there is a route in for those who need it and they can be signposted to different areas of expertise. Longer term, there should be mandatory equalities training for all that includes familiarity with the codes of behaviour. The Leader of the House mentions a new behaviour code, but this is where more work needs to be done; there is a code, and, as the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), said, it could be amended to serve as a reminder of the Nolan principles in public life and what constituents sexist or racist harassment and behaviour.
This mandatory training for every person in the House need not be long—just two hours, which could include fire safety and even cyber-security. It is necessary for all those who work here, and not only to protect themselves on what is appropriate and inappropriate behaviour—it is the right thing to do. As for sanctions, if it is for Members, there must be a further discussion with the parties. As for the parties, the Labour party is constantly refining its sexual harassment process. Our process on sexual harassment has been looked at by a leading QC. We are in a much better place. Any process needs to be tested through the experience of a complainant. Only that way will we know if it works.
This is too important an issue. There needs to be expert help or consultants. Whether through a Select Committee or a parliamentary forum, it will be set up  to monitor outcomes, take forward further work and refine our policies. As you said, Mr Speaker, on Monday when referring to Members, the majority of people working here
“are dedicated, hard-working, committed public servants doing what you believe to be right for this country.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 805.]
I hope that the work we have done on the working group will have given power to the powerless and a voice to the voiceless, as we protect those vulnerable people and enable them to work here in this centre of democracy.

Andrea Leadsom: I am very pleased to hear that the hon. Lady feels that the work is progressing well and that some good recommendations have been made. It is very pleasing that she wishes to make urgent progress. I am glad to hear that and look forward to working closely with her on this in the new year.

Mims Davies: I thank the Leader of the House and all the colleagues who have worked on this over the last six weeks, and I am glad that there will be updates in the new year. I welcome, too, the grip taken on this matter by the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to get this right.
I have been committed in this place to making this place a positive place for everyone working here. Sitting on your diversity committee, Mr Speaker, has been an honour, but it has also shown the number of challenges we face. I am chair of the all-party group on women in Parliament, and we hosted a positive parliamentary Christmas event here for staff, aspiring politicians, councillors, business leaders and—

John Bercow: Order. I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Lady, who is unfailingly courteous to everybody, but we have a lot of business to get on to, and I am waiting to call someone else who has other pressing business: I therefore need a single sentence question, nothing more.

Mims Davies: I will conclude: can we all commit to using every area, including all-party groups, to make this a safe place to work and to aspire to be?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend does a huge amount in this place to support particularly women, but also all equality issues, and I commend her for that and will be delighted to work with her.

Pete Wishart: I thank the Leader of the House for her statement. As a member of the working group, I want first to commend the right hon. Lady for her leadership on this issue and the diligent way that she has gone about trying to build consensus. She is right that we have made solid progress, but it is profoundly disappointing that we have been unable to deliver our report this side of Christmas, as anticipated and as expected by those in this House. This delay has absolutely nothing to do with the Leader of the House, who has personally gone the extra mile to ensure good progress is made. But by failing to deliver the report, we have let everybody in the House down.  We have particularly let down the staff of the House, who were expecting speedy progress, and I am appalled if there is any suggestion that this might be getting punted into the long grass.
We have an excellent report ready to go, which has been agreed by practically all the parties in the House and has been agreed by all staff representatives. The hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) want that point to be stressed. The working group has spent hours agonising over this report, and I join the Leader of the House in thanking the experts on sexual harassment who, with their extensive experience, have helped to design a report that covers all the concerns raised by hon. Members and staff.
I sincerely hope that, if there are parties in this House that may have issues about the process of delivering this report, they are quickly and expeditiously dealt with. This is far too important an issue to be lost in party political machinery. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House to get people around the table as quickly as possible, and make sure this report is delivered so we can start to protect the people in this House?

Andrea Leadsom: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his tireless work. He has been absolutely dedicated to making progress on this, and I commend him for that. I share his enthusiasm for speedy further progress. All colleagues will be aware of the need for careful consultation and consideration, but we need to make fast progress.

Nusrat Ghani: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I thank all members of the working group across the House for the progress that has been made to date. I am particularly keen to hear more on the code of conduct and on what counselling will be made available. As you know, Mr Speaker, I have even raised the matter of the code of conduct with you. This is not just about behaviour; it is also about language. We in this Chamber know the importance of language. It can empower people, but sometimes people use it to subjugate women. Can we ensure that all these matters are included in the report?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises a really important point about language, and I encourage her to send in her own written submission to the working group.

Jess Phillips: I want to say thank you to the Leader of the House for having a very open process, which I have personally felt that I could take part in throughout. Good progress has been made, but what worries me about what has been said today is that there seems to be quite a lot of potential for kicking the can down the road, and that we are not going to hear what is going to happen. I fear that politics is still stopping some of these decisions, and I want assurances that, whatever sanctions regimes and independent regimes the working group has worked towards, they will come to fruition as swiftly as possible.

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Lady has been very helpful and open with her views on this matter, and I absolutely assure her that I am working to get this sorted as soon as possible.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I should like to thank the Leader of the House for all her work on the working group, but she will know, because I have made representations to her, that there are glaring omissions in the work so far. For example, the word “violence” was not uttered from her lips this morning. I suggest that the working group is far too narrowly drawn, and that she should seriously consider setting up a special bicameral Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, to which all Members of this House could apply to be elected. We want to make sure that this is a modern workplace that is an exemplar for the rest of the world.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can assure him that one of the proposals the working group is looking at relates to the provision of services by an independent sexual harassment and sexual violence advocate. That particular expertise will be key to this. His proposal for a bicameral Select Committee is an interesting one, and I have mentioned that it is one of the proposals that has been put to us. The working group will look carefully at all the suggestions for taking this work forward, to ensure that we have consulted thoroughly and done our work considerately in the full knowledge of views across this place.

Jo Swinson: I thank the Leader of the House for her statement and praise her diplomacy. What she has announced is fine as far as it goes, but she knows that we urgently need to make more progress. Many of us on the working group, including some very assiduous members who cannot be here today, are disappointed and frustrated that we are not further forward. She is right to say that change is hard, but would she agree that vested interests, not least Whips Offices that are reluctant to give up their power, must not be allowed to derail parliamentary progress on harassment?

Andrea Leadsom: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution to the working group. She has worked tirelessly on it. I should also like to mention the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who was spent a great deal of time and effort on this. I have spoken to the Whips in all the parties, and they are all keen to see the resolution of this matter. There must be careful consideration, but I believe that we will be in a position to make fast progress in the new year.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her leadership and drive on this issue. Of course Parliament is a special and unique place of work, but my constituents would be most reassured if the bespoke scheme that we come up with was a blend of the best examples of independent grievance and complaints procedures from the private sector, from the public sector and from other Parliaments around the world.

Andrea Leadsom: I share my hon. Friend’s aspiration. As I said in my statement, we want to be setting the best example, not just following something else. We want to ensure that the culture in this place is that everybody feels safe, valued and respected.

Stella Creasy: I join others in commending the Leader of the House for the work that has been done so far, but I recognise that the  journey is not over, because we all have some way to go before we can actually practise what we are preaching in this House. On that point, I ask the Leader of the House to clarify something. She said in her statement that
“further work needs to be carried out to ensure sanctions are appropriate, fair and enforceable”.
Will she confirm that recall is on the table as an option and also that there is clarity on whether Members who may be found to have behaved inappropriately will receive severance payments?

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. It is a matter of fact that recall is already set in law, so it is a possibility under certain conditions. The working group has not yet finished its work or its evidence taking on exactly how that can be brought to bear here, but we are clear that there will be ultimate sanctions. Let us also be clear that the issue for Parliament is not one that affects Members only; it affects peers, Members’ staff and other staff around the parliamentary estate, so there is quite a large amount of work. That is why I have been clear that the work on sanctions needs to be considered further to ensure that they are fair both to the person alleged to have committed something bad and to the complainant who deserves justice. There is more work to be done on that.

Kevin Barron: I thank the Leader of the House for her statement, which contains some welcome measures, particularly the new independent sexual violence advocate service. I also welcome the fact that the system should be completely separate from the normal political channels. As the Leader of the House is aware, the Committee on Standards, alongside the House of Commons Commission, is currently revising the code of conduct. I note that the behaviour code mentioned in the statement will cover a much larger group of people than just Members and that the Leader of the House is consulting further. Who will investigate the other people who may come under that behaviour code?

Andrea Leadsom: The right hon. Gentleman raises a similar point to that of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), which is that it is important that the sanctions are appropriate and fair in respect of the employment contract or contract with members of  the public that is held by the person about whom an accusation is being made. Further work is required to ensure that sanctions are appropriate for the alleged perpetrator.

John Mann: I thank the GMB union for being the first Labour affiliate to build in detailed questioning of potential candidates’ understanding of sexual harassment and for having the integrity to refuse to nominate people who do not have that understanding. Will the Leader of the House let us know whether women who have previously complained and do not feel that that complaint was actually heard will have recourse to the new system?

Andrea Leadsom: That point was discussed a great deal by the working group, and it was recognised that there would have to be certain limitations. We could otherwise theoretically be listening to allegations that  were 40 or 50-years-old and the people against whom such allegations are made may no longer be living, for example. The rules need to be carefully thought through, but it is absolutely our intention that people who have current investigations or allegations should be able to seek access to this independent complaints body, even though the body may have particular reasons for not choosing to take up the allegations.

Chris Bryant: There are some awful employment practices in Parliament. I know of MPs shouting at their staff till they cry, never advertising for staff before they appoint, interviewing on their own without anybody else in the room, not going through a proper shortlisting process—all sorts of terrible practices. Would not the best thing be for us to have a proper human resources service available through the House so that all MPs, the moment they arrive here, have a proper opportunity, especially if they have never employed or recruited people before, to learn good practice from the beginning?

Andrea Leadsom: The working group has taken evidence on and considered that point, and the overwhelming evidence is that Members of Parliament need to continue to directly employ their staff. It was very clear from staff evidence, however, that support for good employment practices—the provision of independent advice on employment matters—was needed for Members’ staff. It was also clear, as I mentioned in my statement, that training—mandatory and voluntary—should be made available not just to Members but to staff. Many staff, for example, asked for proper inductions so that when they come here they can be taught where the Table Office is and so on without having to ask other people’s advice. We have an opportunity to set right some things ranging from the fairly basic all the way up to people understanding thoroughly what constitutes bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, what constitutes a proper appraisal, and so on. Many Members across the House already have that experience, but not all of them, and we should make it the case that every Member—every employer in this place—has access to that training.

Liz McInnes: I am pleased that some trade unions have had a voice on the working group, but when is Parliament going to take that further step and formally recognise trade unions?

Andrea Leadsom: I pay tribute to working group members Max Freedman, branch chair of Unite, Georgina Kester, chair of the Members’ and Peers’ Staff Association, and Emily Cunningham, a representative of the National Union of Journalists, all three of whom work for Members in this place. They have done a great job. They have also consulted widely with staff. There are some specific technical reasons why it would not be possible to require some sort of across-the-board recognition of trade unions, but nevertheless the working group has taken evidence on how valuable some of the support from trade unions can be.

John Bercow: I think the right hon. Lady means staff of Members of Parliament, which is a matter that can be further considered, but it is important to put it on  the record, not least for the benefit of those who are attending to our proceedings who are not Members of, or employed by, the House, that the House itself most certainly recognises trade unions and negotiates with the staff of the House. I recognise, however, the other issue at which she was hinting, and that can certainly be further discussed. I am in no way an obstacle to a development on that front, if that is the settled or general will of Members.

Wes Streeting: If there is an HR service, surely it could recognise trade unions for Members’ staff in the way described. I thank the Leader of the House for her work on this, but it cannot be right that it is easier to sanction a Member for disorderly conduct in the Chamber than to sanction them for disorderly, disreputable and disgraceful conduct outside of it, so can she press ahead on that? I also gently remind her that this issue belongs to the House, and if she cannot find unanimity on the working group, perhaps she should publish a draft report that we can all comment on, because we would welcome more progress and momentum behind what she is doing.

Andrea Leadsom: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the working group is working as fast and carefully as it can, and as I said in my statement, we hope to produce that report in the new year.

Louise Haigh: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), I was branch secretary of Unite the union in Parliament a few years ago, and I was involved in legal conversations about recognition. It is a complex process, but there is not a firm legal barrier in its way, and it is crucial to cleaning up the culture in this place. I am grateful for your support, Mr Speaker, but I beg the Leader of the House to reconsider her statement just now that there will be no recognition of Unite the union here.

Andrea Leadsom: I assure the hon. Lady that that is not what I just said. What I said is that we took evidence on it and that there are some technical challenges. Of course, because Members of Parliament employ their staff directly, there is not necessarily a lever by which to require people to make such decisions for themselves. I am not ruling anything out; I am merely trying to enlighten the House on the evidence taken by the working group.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Leader of the House for her industriousness, hard work, energy and diligence on this matter, which is good to have—there have been some 11 meetings, totalling 30 hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) sat on the working group and made a substantial contribution.
I share the Leader of the House’s disappointment that, as others have said, there should be any unnecessary delay, and I welcome the progress so far. Will she outline the next steps to ensure there is a robust and independent system so that no one is harassed or bullied without action being taken?

Andrea Leadsom: I also thank the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) for her very strong and diligent contribution to the working group. In   particular, she brought up the specific issues in constituency offices, especially in the context of Northern Ireland, which the working group found very helpful.
As I said in my statement, the working group will continue to meet. We will reconvene in the new year, and we will seek to make progress as swiftly as we can.

SUPPORTED HOUSING

Marcus Jones: Mr Speaker, I wish you and fellow Members a very merry Christmas. I thank you for the opportunity to update the House on our plans for a new funding model for supported housing. This update follows an earlier debate on this issue on  25 October and responds to the recent resolution of the House.
We all agree that supported housing is an invaluable lifeline for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, which is why this Government are determined to ensure that the funding model that underpins supported housing protects and boosts the supply of such housing and delivers a good quality of life for the people who depend on it. The House will be aware that we set out our plans in a written ministerial statement on 31 October, in which we confirmed that we will not apply the local housing allowance rates to tenants in supported housing or the wider social rented sector, and that we will introduce this new approach from April 2020, rather than April 2019, to ensure that vital support provided to vulnerable people is not interrupted or, indeed, put in doubt.
We said that funding for housing costs for sheltered and extra-care housing will stay in the welfare system and that we will introduce a sheltered rent for sheltered and extra-care housing—a type of social rent that will cap the amount that providers of such housing can charge for gross rent. We will work closely with the sector to set those limits at an appropriate level and, more generally, to protect provision and new supply. We will bring in existing supply at existing levels of rent and service charges.
We also said that long-term supported housing, such as permanent housing for people with learning or physical disabilities, or long-term mental ill health, will remain in the welfare system and that we will look to work with the sector to develop greater cost control. All short-term provision currently funded by the welfare system will continue to be funded at the same level by local authorities in 2020. Housing costs will be funded directly by local authorities through a ring-fenced grant—that ring fence will remain in the long term. The amount of grant funding will continue to take account of the costs of provision and of the required growth in supply.
There are real advantages to this new approach. By retaining funding in the welfare system for longer-term supported housing and sheltered housing, we are giving the sector, in the words of Home Group,
“the certainty we need to get on and build more homes.”
Home Group has not hesitated to act, and it has already given the go-ahead for £50 million of capital investment in three new supported housing schemes. So the sector is feeling optimistic about the future, which can only be good news for supported and sheltered housing tenants. For short-term accommodation, we are proposing a new and separate model to take account of the particular needs it presents. All short-term provision, for example, hostels and women’s refuges, currently funded by the welfare system will continue to be funded at the same level by local authorities in 2020.
As noted in the recent Budget 2017 documents, there will be a transfer of funds from welfare spending to my Department from 2020-21. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) voiced his concerns on 25 October over future funding levels for supported housing after 2020. I would like to reassure him that the amount of grant funding for this part of the sector after 2020 will continue to take account of the costs of provision and the growth of future provision. I recognise that there are also concerns about how new arrangements for local authorities to directly fund short-term accommodation will work. Again, I want to make it clear that our aim, in making these changes, is to allow residents to be able to keep and find work without having to worry about meeting their housing costs at a particularly difficult time in their lives.
The changes will also help people to move on without carrying a legacy of rent arrears and debt, and ease the administrative burden for providers who will no longer need to collect rents and service charges from residents. Councils have a strong interest, too, in sustainable short-term accommodation that meets local needs. The new model gives them a bigger role in commissioning short-term accommodation, as well as in strategic planning for supported housing—the Local Government Association has welcomed that. This strong local focus runs right through our plans, encouraging greater engagement at a local level, with quality, positive outcomes for residents at the forefront.
So we have set out the framework for funding reforms that provides the certainty, stronger oversight, cost control and, most vitally, the focus on good outcomes for tenants that is needed to boost housing supply in this incredibly diverse sector. Having done that, we are now working closely with the sector on the detail. We are formally consulting on “sheltered rent” and on the short-term funding model. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), and I have each also met sector representatives. I am pleased to say that the overall response has been positive, but we acknowledge some of the concerns that have been expressed and will continue to work with local authorities, providers and tenants to get this right. The people who live in supported housing—vulnerable older people, people with learning and physical disabilities, women and children fleeing horrific domestic abuse, and the homeless—deserve no less.
Before I conclude my statement, I would like to thank all those people who are working to deliver sheltered and supported housing across our nation during this festive period. I would like to thank them for their hard work and all that they do to support the most vulnerable people in society. I commend this statement to the House.

John Healey: I join the Minister in paying tribute to all those working on the frontline, particularly those helping the homeless over this Christmas period. I also thank him for the early copy of his statement.
Although I fail to see anything fresh in this oral statement, I nevertheless welcome it, because this House has played a big part over the past two years in getting the Government to reverse their previous plans on supported housing. Individual Members on both sides of the House have spoken strongly, as have charities and housing associations, to warn of the folly and flaws in the funding changes. The Joint Select Committee report has laid a cross-party basis for the Government rethink. Labour has led three Opposition day debates and, as the Minister says, this statement, “responds to the resolution of the House” on the last of those.
In that Labour debate on 25 October, I warned that the devil is always in the detail and in the funding. I am sad to say that today’s statement does nothing to help clear up concerns on both fronts. On funding, the Minister has repeated the same flawed promise, saying, “All short-term provision currently funded by the welfare system will continue to be funded at the same level by local authorities in 2020.” That is only a commitment for 2020; there is no pledge beyond that, even though the Red Book last month showed that the Treasury has inked in cuts of half a billion pounds in 2021-22. Will he clear up this problem today by confirming there will be no cut in funding in the second or subsequent years?
The Minister moved on to say in this statement that, “grant funding for this part of the sector after 2020 will continue to take account of the costs of provision and the growth of future provision”. This is precisely the problem: it will be Ministers who make grant decisions on funding for the future and Ministers who will say they have taken account of costs and growth. Unlike the welcome move to keep other types of supported housing in the welfare system, this will no longer be needs-led and no longer based on the right to help with housing costs for individuals. That is why St Mungo’s and others say that with these plans
“it is unlikely that providers would be able to secure loans to develop new services or be able to reassure regulators that providing short-term supported housing is financially viable in the long term”.
So what changes will he make to the plans to provide reassurance on this?
On detail, the Minister has dispelled none of the confusion about how the new system will work in practice. The plan is to keep a resident’s entitlement to housing benefit, but services with the new grant will not charge rent and will not draw down or cash in that entitlement. So what happens if a service does not receive a grant? Can its residents receive housing benefit? If a service has grant for some but not for all residents, can some still get housing benefit? Will he consider cutting the current two-year definition of “short term” down to 12 weeks, which will deal with some of the big problems in universal credit, and then make people eligible to claim housing benefit? Finally, what will he do to make sure such organisations that do not currently deal with local authorities and do not, for instance, get Supporting People funding, do not fall through the gaps in the new system?
In future years, students will be given this as a case study in disastrous Government decision making. This is the third policy rewrite in the two years since George Osborne made the crude policy decision to give the Treasury big cost savings, and the Government still have not got it right. So will the Minister accept that the Government must work further with Parliament and  the housing sector to meet the terms of the resolution and sort out a good long-term system for the future and funding of supported housing?

Marcus Jones: This is the season of good will to all men and women, and the right hon. Gentleman set off in his remarks so well, but then was not too festive in his spirit. He mentioned short-term accommodation and asked what would happen post-2020. If he looks, he will see that there is clearly a transfer from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Department for Communities and Local Government to cover the cost of short-term supported housing going forward. We are absolutely clear, and we will come forward with further plans following the consultation, on how we will assess future provision, how we will deal with that and what we will need to make sure that the providers have a sustainable position going forward to reflect inflation.
The tenants will not lose the ability to get help with housing costs, and we fully expect that when the system comes into effect people will be in a position to have the help and support they need. We do not expect that people will have the opportunity to claim housing benefit for the same service at that point, but there are deficiencies in the current system that the right hon. Gentleman just does not acknowledge, such as on the position of women who go into a refuge in terms of their being able to work—I mentioned that in my original statement. Sometimes these women cannot claim housing benefit in that position and so cannot work.
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are working closely with the sector. He asked about several aspects of how the policy will work with respect to local authorities. We are putting in place a strong statement of expectations and strong conditions for the ring-fenced grant.
With respect to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the two-year definition for short-term supported accommodation, I can tell him that we asked a working group, which included providers from across the sector, to look at the issue. Although it was not absolutely clear, the working group came up with the two-year period as a sort of minority verdict. That is why we have followed the path that we have.
I reassure the House that the Government are absolutely committed to protecting the most vulnerable. We are absolutely confident that by working with the sector we can get this right.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. This is an extremely important matter and I am keen to accommodate colleagues’ interest in it. However, I should remind the House of what I said earlier, namely that two heavily subscribed debates are due to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee when this exchange has been concluded. It would be good if contributions did not expand to fill the time available. What we are looking for here is a short question and a short reply. The former will be brilliantly exemplified, as always, by the author of the textbook on the matter, Sir Desmond Swayne.

Desmond Swayne: Will account be taken of the security measures that are proper for refuges that deal with people fleeing domestic violence?

Marcus Jones: Indeed, that is an important consideration and it is certainly part of the housing costs. Housing benefit for refuges is currently higher than general-needs housing benefit to reflect those types of costs.

Deidre Brock: I welcome the introduction of the sheltered rent principle; it seems the right thing to do. Nevertheless, it is not too difficult to pinpoint why the Government have come in for criticism over the paying of the housing costs of the most disadvantaged members of our society. Will the Minister guarantee that there will be no penny pinching and that the extra-care housing costs will be met in full by central Government, without quibble or caveat? That is just a straight-up-and-down responsibility of a modern Government. The costs of and responsibility for delivery cannot just be passed on to local government, charities or housing providers.
I encourage the Minister to drop the mantra that the provision of housing support is about getting people into work. The provision of housing support is about helping people with their housing. Making sure that people are in decent housing is an honourable aim in itself; it does not need additional aims.
There was an explicit commitment in the October policy paper to additional funding for Scotland and Wales as a result of the implementation of this policy. Will the Minister tell us whether that remains the intention? If so, what is the indicative sum in each case?
Lastly, it is very welcome that there will be some security of supply for support for people to get back into housing and hopefully to move on to managing their own houses, but will the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to provide additional resources for the outreach and street work that helps to find the people in need in the first place?

Marcus Jones: On the hon. Lady’s last point, we are talking today about the housing costs, rather than the support costs that she mentioned.
Sheltered rent will also cover extra-care housing. I assure the hon. Lady that this policy is not at all about penny pinching.
The hon. Lady asked about work. The point I was making was about women’s refuges. Often, women who are being abused and are subject to domestic violence have reasonable jobs, but unless they give up those jobs, they will not qualify for housing benefit. I cannot see how that is right at all. Also, 70% of people in supported housing are older people, so in reality we do not expect them to work. I hope that clarifies that point.
I also wish to clarify that we are working with the devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales on all aspects of the policy and will confirm the funding for Scotland and Wales in due course.

Philip Hollobone: What is being done to highlight and promote the best examples of supported housing and to condemn and call out the worst?

Marcus Jones: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and that is one of the reasons for reform. There are some appalling examples of supported housing, but because there are no checks and balances in the housing benefit system, people get away with providing that appalling housing and get paid the same as another provider who  provides a good-quality service. We will work with the Local Government Association and the sector to put in place strong conditions to make sure that best practice is followed everywhere.

Helen Hayes: Will the Minister clarify how funding domestic violence refuge provision at the same level as today will address the shortfall in provision throughout the country? Between 2010 and 2014, 17% of refuges closed, and every day around 90 women and their children are being turned away from refuge provision throughout the country. Without an increase in the funding for refuge provision and the establishment of a national network, the Government will fail to guarantee that every woman and child fleeing domestic abuse can be kept safe in a refuge.

Marcus Jones: The hon. Lady makes a good point. Every woman should be protected and have a safe place to go. There are more bed spaces than there were in 2010, but she has a good point, and early next year we will do a full audit to see what provision is like throughout the country. That will allow us to see where the gaps and challenges are, because we want to make sure that women are safe.

Peter Aldous: I commend the Minister for the great deal of work he has done in this complicated policy area. Will he assure me that he will continue to liaise closely with the sector to address two particular issues: first, short-term emergency accommodation; and secondly, the need to stimulate much-needed new development?

Marcus Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and commend him for the hard work that he has put in on this issue. He asked about short-term emergency accommodation and new supply. On both fronts, we will be working closely with the sector to make sure that there is progress. It is already happening—the Home Group has confirmed that it will spend another £50 million on supported housing—but we want to make sure that the £400 million we have set aside for capital funding goes out to build good-quality supported housing, building on the other 27,000 supported-housing units we have built since 2011.

Tom Brake: Will the Minister commit to an annual review of the arrangements to see whether the investment that he says is going to come does in fact come? Will he confirm when the Government will have a long-term, sustainable plan for the sector?

Marcus Jones: I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that what we are putting in place is a long-term, sustainable plan for the sector. We are working closely with those in the sector to make sure that they are reassured of that.

Jeremy Lefroy: Will my hon. Friend meet me, North Staffordshire YMCA and Staffordshire Women’s Aid to discuss some of their concerns about the proposals for short-term supported housing?

Marcus Jones: My hon. Friend is a strong campaigner for the people of Stafford and Staffordshire. I would certainly be glad to meet him and his local YMCA and Women’s Aid to talk about short-term accommodation. I have already had meetings with several Members from all parties to discuss this issue, and I am happy to do so again.

Kate Green: I share the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) about moving away from a demand-led system for people in need of short-term supported housing. Will the Minister say what will happen if a local authority has no allocation left to meet the needs of vulnerable individuals? Will central Government underwrite the costs that might be faced in those circumstances?

Marcus Jones: This policy is about getting the system right, and we have until 2020 to do that. We need to make sure that our assessment of needs in particular areas is right. Areas will have to set out a clear plan to say what the future need in their area will be. We will work with them on that because we are absolutely clear that we want people to have access to the various types of short-term supported accommodation.

Bob Blackman: I commend my hon. Friend on the action that he has taken so far. By definition, people in supported housing are vulnerable, but far too often we concentrate on what they cannot do, rather than on what they can do. One problem that people face is the need to fill in complicated forms to ask for the money to which they are entitled. During the transitional phase, will the Minister look into streamlining the process to take away some of the anxiety of people in supported housing, so that they can fulfil the real potential of what they can do in society?

Marcus Jones: As usual, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. He is absolutely right that, at a time when people are in crisis in their lives, form filling and bureaucracy are not the first things on their minds. He is also right that most of these people have a significant amount of potential. With our new system, we will take that form filling and bureaucracy out of the way, so that we can support people when and where they need it.

Nicholas Dakin: Homelessness and housing insecurity have been on the rise in the past two years’ muddle. Are we confident now that the Government’s statements today will actually put in place the security that is needed to tackle what the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) says are short-term needs and longer-term investment issues?

Marcus Jones: I am certainly confident that we can achieve that in short-term supported housing. I am also confident that the other measures that the Government are taking, having supported the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the various other programmes including Housing First that we are looking to pilot, will make a significant difference to tackling the difficult problem of homelessness that we all want to see dealt with.

Michael Tomlinson: I recently visited supported accommodation  in my constituency—Waverley House in Wimborne, a   Bournemouth Churches property—and saw the excellent work that was going on there, supporting the most vulnerable young people. Will the Minister commit to continuing to encourage and support this vital sector?

Marcus Jones: I absolutely will. I just want to reassure the short-term providers in my hon. Friend’s constituency that we are continuing to work with the sector. We are listening to some of the concerns. It is quite obvious that, when we meet the short-term providers and explain the full extent of what we are looking to do, they are reasonably warm to what we are saying. They also say to us that we have to get it right. We must convince them, for example, of the ring fences for the long term, and we are certainly seeking to do that.

Graham Jones: rose—

John Bercow: Graham P. Jones to Minister M. Jones.

Graham Jones: The Minister claims that he wants to help the young vulnerable homeless, yet in my constituency the Crossroads hostel for homeless young people is funded by the Salvation Army, the local housing allowance and Lancashire County Council. This Government are butchering Lancashire County Council’s budgets. How can he reassure me that Crossroads will stay open?

Marcus Jones: Earlier this year, we gave councils access  to another £9.25 billion for adult social care. I take  the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the organisations in his constituency that run short-term support for homeless people. I commend them for what they are doing. If he wants to bring them to meet me to raise their concerns, he is very welcome to do so.

POINT OF ORDER

Chris Stephens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have sent you a copy of a letter that I received from the chief executive of Serco two days ago, which caused great concern to me and to constituency office staff. I gently describe it as being an intemperate letter. It gives an interpretation of data protection from the Data Protection Act 1998 and says that Members should seek approval from constituents. Mr Speaker, could you please provide me with an interpretation of data protection as it applies to Members?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. I am sighted on the matter both because he alerted me to the thrust and because I have seen the letter, a substantial letter, that  he has received from the chief executive of Serco, which has caused him considerable disquiet, not to say consternation. I expect all organisations dealing with hon. Members or their staff to respect the constitutional responsibility of Members of Parliament to pursue issues on behalf of their constituents and to be both helpful and courteous to them in doing so, just as I am sure that we would expect ourselves and our staff to be in our dealings with others.
I can make no comment on the substance of the disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and the chief executive of Serco, but I can confirm that, in the words of the Information Commissioner’s guidance, the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002—a matter raised in the House some months ago on which I ruled at the time—provides a basis for the disclosure of sensitive personal data by organisations responding to Members acting on behalf of individual constituents. The order does not place an obligation on organisations to disclose sensitive personal data to Members who raise matters on behalf of constituents. However, it provides a legal basis for doing so, and removes unnecessary bureaucracy and delay. Consequently, in the great majority of cases, organisations will be able to release sensitive personal information about the particular constituent to the Member without advising the constituent of this, provided that the disclosure is reasonable and necessary for the purposes of, or in connection with, responding to a request from the constituent. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and that, when Members beetle across to the relevant office to obtain a copy of the Official Report and study my response, they will similarly conclude that it is helpful.
I see the beaming countenance of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I wish him all the best for Christmas and the new year. Indeed, seeing as there have been so many festive greetings this morning, perhaps I should take the opportunity to say now to Members who will not be here much later, that I wish them all a merry Christmas. I thank them for their huge and unstinting efforts over this year and express the confident expectation and hope that they will redouble them next.

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN UK POLITICS

[Relevant document: Twelfth Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of Session 2016-17, Lessons learned from the EU Referendum, HC496.]

John Bercow: A considerable number of Members wish to speak in this debate. There will be three Front-Bench speeches to boot towards the end and therefore I think that I can say with some confidence that the opening speech by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), a very senior denizen of the House and formerly Deputy Leader of the House, will not exceed 15 minutes.

Tom Brake: I beg to move,
That this House has considered Russian interference in UK politics and society.
I will indeed seek to stay within your limit, Mr Speaker, and hope to gain some credit for it at some point in the near future.
This is a very welcome opportunity to debate this subject, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making the time available and the colleagues who supported the bid. I am pleased that we have a very good representation of senior Members here who have a long-standing interest in Russia.
The premise of this debate is that the UK is at risk of neglecting the threat that Russia poses. I argue that Russia is a clear and present danger and presents a threat to our democracy. Some may consider that to be an alarmist statement, but I hope to explain why, in my view, it is not. I will not be able to cover, in the 15 minutes available, all areas of concern, such as the impact of dirty Russian money in the UK and the UK Government’s apparent unwillingness to hunt it down, in relation to Magnitsky in particular; the extent to which the energy industry is vulnerable to Russian takeovers or leverage; or the appropriateness of the London Stock Exchange floating the EN+ Group. I suspect that other Members will pick up on those issues.
Why do I make this alarmist statement about Russia? First, clearly, there have been attempts by the Russians to influence the outcome of a number of elections. According to the Henry Jackson Society, there is not one smoking gun, but it is a case of joining up the dots, and Russia has a history of interference. The threat is not new; it has been around for a decade, especially, for instance, in the Estonian and Georgian elections in 2008 and 2009. Of course there was the well-publicised Russian interference mainly in the period post the Scottish independence referendum, when they tried to discredit the result of the election.
In the US, we have seen the most famous example of cyber-interference through the activities of the Internet Research Agency, which has spent more than $2 million on activity in America alone over the past two years, and that funding was directly authorised from the Kremlin. This pattern of behaviour suggests that Russia will also have interfered in the EU referendum.

John Spellar: The right hon. Gentleman referred to this interference as having taken place over the last decade. Has this not been the pattern of behaviour ever since the Bolshevik coup 100 years ago?

Tom Brake: As I said earlier, I only have 15 minutes in which to contribute to the debate. Although I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we could go back a lot further, perhaps he could do so in his speech, if he makes one. I am focusing only on recent activity.
Information emerged just last month about hundreds of fake Twitter accounts, probably run from St Petersburg. Research at the University of Edinburgh in relation to the EU referendum showed that at least 419 fake accounts tweeted about Brexit a total of just under 3,500 times, although that was mostly after the referendum had taken place, rather than before. Meanwhile, research by City, University of London from October showed that there was a
“13,500-strong Twitter bot army”
present on the social media site around the time of the referendum, and in the four weeks before the vote, those accounts posted no less than 65,000 tweets about the referendum, showing a “clear slant” towards the leave campaign. However, there was no mention in that report of any specific Russian involvement.

Julian Knight: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on leading this debate. Does he agree that part of the reason that most of the hard evidence seems to come only from Twitter is because Facebook does not co-operate as it should in order to get to the root of these problems?

Tom Brake: As the hon. Gentleman probably expects, I will discuss Facebook shortly, including some negative and positive things about its activities.
I should say that I am not attacking the Russians here; I am attacking the Russian Government. Of course, some things that the Russian Government or people associated with them might have been involved with may, indeed, be also activities that other state actors are conducting, so this is not just about Russia, although that is clearly the subject of the debate.
The United States has a gaping vulnerability to disinformation operations carried out by Russia and other malicious actors across the social media environment. In the USA, just one account from the troll factory in St Petersburg managed to amass more than 120,000 followers, interacted with the Trump campaign leaders, and was quoted in newspapers such as the Washington Post as a voice of the American right. Is the Minister happy that the UK has adequate defences against such interference here?
The simple truth is that although Arron Banks and Nigel Farage may be Putin fans, President Putin is certainly not a friend of this country. Russia would only have interfered in the EU referendum or any other elections here in order to damage the security of the UK and, indeed, the EU.

Liam Byrne: The right hon. Gentleman is making a brilliant point, but has he noticed that the American national security strategy—published this week—explicitly recognises this threat, whereas our national security strategy does not?

Tom Brake: That is a very good point, which I will come back to. The Minister now has advance notice that he needs to be prepared to answer that question, because it is clearly a source of concern.
There is no soft power in Putin’s eyes and, as far as he is concerned, the use of social media to interfere in foreign states is a vital, weaponised tool. The covert interference I referred to is supplemented by more overt attempts to create a media counter-narrative. I am now talking about RT. The RT chief editor, Margarita Simonyan, is on the record comparing RT to the Ministry of Defence, saying in 2008:
“We were fighting the information war against the whole of the Western world”.
She referred to “the information weapon”, which is used in “critical moments”, and said that RT’s task in peacetime is to build an audience, so they can fight the information war better next time. Not surprisingly, therefore, Chatham House and the Henry Jackson Society see RT as a tool of destabilisation from the Kremlin.
Members will know that RT was found in breach by Ofcom in September 2015 for stories about Assad and chemical weapons. However, as I understand it, Ofcom has not always enforced sanctions as and when appropriate. According to the Library, Sputnik has never been found in breach by Ofcom. Ofcom imposed 84 sanctions against 57 broadcasters in the 10 years up to March 2017—RT was not the subject of a sanction during that time—and found broadcasters in breach of the broadcasting code more than 2,500 times
I am certainly not advocating shutting down RT, and I do not think anyone else is. I just want to ensure that it abides by the broadcasting rules and that appropriate action is taken by Ofcom every time it does not. Is the Minister happy with Ofcom’s actions? Does it consistently pursue RT for breaches in the way he would like? As an aside, I would like Ofcom to be much more active in pursuing a number of other TV channels that are broadcast here, in particular when threats are made to the Ahmadi Muslim community on some of those channels.
No British parliamentarian should be taking money from RT. In fact, I would go one step further and say that, frankly, no British parliamentarian should appear on RT. The only exception to that rule might be if they have complete control and are completely unedited—if they can go on the channel and say what they want, knowing that it will not be chopped, edited and cut by RT. Apart from that, no one here or in the House of Lords should ever appear on that channel. The only time that RT ever contacts me is when I have said something critical about the Government. Well, I am happy to say critical things about the Government on the BBC, but RT is trying to create an agenda that is about attacking the Government at every turn, and I will not facilitate that process.
The next issue is the question of whether the Russians are infiltrating or leaking content from political party systems. Well, we know what they did regarding the Democrats. Incidentally, they also hacked the Republicans, but they only released the information on the Democrats. We also know that they attempted to infiltrate Macron’s team by setting up a number of websites with pseudo-official titles that would email Macron’s members of staff, trying to get them to click on links and provide back-door  access to their systems. As I understand it, Macron managed to defeat that, mainly by inserting some fake news into the content that the Russians were trying to access so that the story was demolished because of the inconsistencies within it.
As Members will know, Monsieur Macron had a more aggressive and muscular stance towards Russia than any other parties in that French presidential election, and I believe that that is why he was targeted in a way in which the others were not. As I understand it, the other French political parties were targeted, but the Russians were clearly interested in releasing information that related to Macron in particular. Mr Putin has said that these hackers may not be associated with the Government and that they may be “patriotic” hackers. Well, they may be patriotic hackers as far as he is concerned, but one has to suspect that they have the Government’s endorsement, because I am sure that the Russian Government could clamp down on these so-called patriotic hackers if they wanted to do so.
I am trying to make my questions very clear because I know that the officials in the Box can then provide a written answer for the Minister to read out and get on the record straightaway, so I have another easy question for him. Will he consider making UK political parties part of the critical national infrastructure, and what are the implications of taking such a step?
To be able to ascertain the level of threat, we have to assess it accurately, otherwise I risk coming across as a conspiracy theorist. I know that I do already in relation to Brexit, but I do not want to become the person known for conspiracy theories in this place. The difficulty we have is that we do not really know the extent of the activity because, frankly, no one has investigated it properly yet. It is only when that has been done that we will know. I regret that it took so long for the Intelligence and Security Committee to be reconstituted, but I welcome the fact that it has stated that Russia will be a topic that it will focus on. Does the Minister think that the Committee should give priority to the subject? Would he also want the ISC to work effectively with the Electoral Commission so that it can go to places that the Electoral Commission cannot? An ISC inquiry would help us to establish accurately the level of threat.
To pick up on an earlier intervention, we know that Facebook was asked by the Electoral Commission to look at examples of paid ads from Russia, but it was not asked to look at the use of bots or trolls, so the picture we are going to get will, at best, be very incomplete. The response the commission has had—that the Russians apparently spent £7.50 on advertising—does not quite sound right to me.

Jo Swinson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. We are not talking just about a few Twitter or Facebook accounts with no picture avatar and 10 followers. The David Jones account had more than 100,000 followers and was listed as one of the most influential Twitter accounts during the last general election. It purports to be from Southampton, yet it tweets exclusively in office hours in a Russian time zone. Surely the social media companies have a greater role to play in identifying fake accounts—which are pretending to be something they are not—for the integrity of the debate we should all enjoy online.

Tom Brake: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I do not know whether she has, but I have engaged in exchanges with David Jones—clearly, I will not continue to do so—because whoever he or she is was a very prolific tweeter during that campaign. So, yes, we need to be aware of those issues.
According to Facebook, neither the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, nor No. 10, nor the intelligence services have given it any advice about what it should be looking for. If that is correct, it concerns me, and I hope the Minister will respond to that point.

Liam Byrne: I think the Americans looked at 47 accounts, which were all provided to the Mueller inquiry by intelligence agencies, but—the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—our agencies have offered, I think, only one. The other risk we have to be careful of, though, is that money was transferred onshore—the Electoral Commission is now investigating that—so some of the illicit money may have come from UK onshore accounts.

Tom Brake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. That is another aspect of this issue that I am not going to be able to dwell on at great length in the few minutes that remain.
Facebook is doing work on ad transparency, and I welcome that. Personally, I would be comfortable with having the equivalent of a “printed and published” on the political ads that I place on Facebook. Such measures would help people to understand who was actually promoting themselves. I wonder whether the Minister would support that suggestion.
There is also the issue of authentication. I and, I suspect, every Member here have a blue tick on Twitter, so we have been confirmed as being real people. Maybe Facebook should do something similar to authenticate people with Facebook accounts so that we know that everyone is a genuine person, rather than someone sitting in an office block on the outskirts of Moscow preparing fake accounts. I hope the Minister will agree with that point as well.
We need to resource our response appropriately, and I have concerns—I certainly had concerns when I was a Minister and had dealings with it—that the Electoral Commission does not, in fact, have the resources to deal with this issue. Dealing with activity abroad is clearly not within its remit, and it would not have any expertise to do that, so we need to hear how it can access that expertise. The Minister is nodding, so hopefully he will be able to clarify that issue. I hope he is confident that the Electoral Commission has the necessary resources and expertise, or can at least access them.

Pat McFadden: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I ask him to emphasise the point about the resources that are needed to investigate. There is a danger that we are sidetracked into the social media side of this, when, ultimately, the more important thing is the money. Does he believe that the Electoral Commission is sufficiently equipped, resourced and empowered to properly follow the money and to ascertain where donations come from, whether the original donors really own that money and whether the agencies and the Electoral Commission need more powers to properly track the finance and the politics?

Tom Brake: My short answer is, no, I do not think it is. Clearly, that needs to be acted on. It is not just about political parties; it is also about tracking the money associated with political movements, such as the leave campaign or—this may not be controversial for the right hon. Gentleman—Momentum, so that we actually have some clarity about where the money is coming from and so on. We would all benefit if there was more transparency.

John Spellar: Until we get a change in mindset among these bodies, additional resources will not have the necessary impact. These bodies have to have the will and the necessary policy framework, and action on the resources may follow that if they are not sufficient. That applies not just to the Electoral Commission, but right the way across the agencies of Government.

Tom Brake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. Yes, this debate is partly about giving them the will and telling them that they have the backing of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House to take the action that is needed.
I will conclude by reading out the few questions I have left for the Minister—I have been generous in taking interventions. First, as I understand it, the Government have not tasked the intelligence and security services with investigating Russian subversion as a high priority. Russia is a tier 1 threat, but the six-point national security strategy does not mention defence against Russian interference in our political system, so will the Minister press for that to be changed?
On the funding of political movements, does the Minister agree, following the intervention from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), that financial accountability for political movements must be improved as well? On the Mueller inquiry, will the Minister confirm that the UK Government will proactively seek and supply any relevant information to the inquiry, rather than just sit there and wait to be approached? Finally, social media companies are, on the positive side, keen to work with the Government to try to close some of the loopholes we have referred to today.
We need to make sure that Russia is held publicly to account, whether that is through Ofcom or through Ministers, when they know that this has happened, making it clear that the Russians have been actively hacking some of our systems—as they did in relation to the NHS hacking by North Korea. The ISC also needs to come forward with its report.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to raise this issue, and I hope the House will give the Minister the oomph he needs to go away and ensure that the respective Departments—one of the problems is that this is an FCO, Cabinet Office and Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport issue—will grab this bull by the horns and make sure that Russia, because of the threat it presents to the UK, is dealt with with the degree of seriousness that is required.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. As Mr Speaker said, there are a number of colleagues wishing to contribute to this debate and to  the later debate, so I am afraid I am going to have to impose an immediate five-minute time limit. I would urge colleagues to be very aware that, if they take interventions, it is likely that that will reduce the time for others.

Damian Collins: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and I congratulate him on securing the debate. At the end of his remarks, he rightly raised important issues around the prioritisation of this issue for the intelligence services and the Government’s co-operation with the Mueller inquiry, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about those questions later.
This debate feels very timely. On Tuesday, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee held our first oral evidence session on fake news and disinformation, looking in particular at Russian activity in Catalonia around the referendum. My staff tweeted a link from my Twitter account to where people could watch the Committee hearing. According to an article in The Times today, a Russian-language bot account then responded to my tweet sharing the link to the hearings with the threat that we should be careful because we can all be wiped out in a single stroke—I do not know whether that was just the Select Committee or the entire nation, but, nevertheless, it was interesting.
On a previous occasion, when I happened to share a link to a discussion I had had with Hugo Rifkind, based on the facts of the US Senate investigation into Russian activity during the presidential election, the official Twitter account of the Russian embassy in London compared me to Joseph Goebbels in seeking to spread big lies about what Russia is doing. Let us not be under any illusion that Russia is, not just anecdotally but in a systematic way, using information as a weapon of war and seeking to intervene in the democratic processes of other countries. It is doing that to undermine people’s confidence in public institutions and to cause division and hatred, and it is part of its strategy of breaking down multilateralism and co-operation between countries in western Europe. That is what Russia is doing.
In the short time that I have available, I want to focus specifically on the role of the social media companies and the way in which they are responding to the different investigations taking place in the UK. My Select Committee wrote to Facebook asking it not only to give evidence of paid-for advertising through its service during the referendum and the last general election, but to identify activity by fake accounts across the platform. Much of the activity in America was based on pages being set up to promote links to sites where fake news and disinformation were shared and fake events organised. It is important that we understand the breadth of what is being done.
Facebook’s response so far—certainly its charge that a tiny amount of money is being spent in this country—is not based on an analysis of what is going on across its platform; it is based simply on looking at the accounts identified as part of the American investigation. Those accounts were given to Facebook by the US intelligence services. Facebook had never proactively looked on  its site for evidence of this activity. At the moment,  its position in this country is that it is refusing to conduct that research itself. As the hon. Member for  East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said, it must be possible for it to look at the geographical location of accounts, the characteristics of the accounts from where information is shared—

Thomas Tugendhat: That is how it makes money.

Damian Collins: My hon. Friend is exactly right. It must be able to understand how to target users with information based on what it thinks they are interested in and where that information is coming from. It could conduct its own preliminary research to look for the characteristics of fake accounts and disinformation accounts linked to Russian agencies that are based on its platform. At the moment, it is refusing to do that.

Liam Byrne: Facebook’s last quarterly profits were nearly $4 billion. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it could afford to conduct the research if the will were there to do so?

Damian Collins: I absolutely agree. I noticed on a recent investor call that Mark Zuckerberg warned Facebook investors that dealing with these issues would have a direct impact on the bottom line. I am glad that he said that, but I would like to see him using that money. I do not see any evidence of the company putting resource into trying to tackle this issue.
At the moment, Facebook’s position in the UK is that it was only responding to questions put to it by the Electoral Commission. That has a much narrower focus because of the Electoral Commission’s exact remit. Facebook is not answering questions put to it by the Select Committee asking for more evidence of Russian-linked activity across the site, including in pages, group accounts and profiles, not just restricted to paid-for advertising. We have a right to receive information from Facebook, and it could conduct such research. It proactively conducted its own research looking at the activity of fake accounts during the French presidential election. That led to the deletion of more than 30,000 accounts, pages and profiles. Facebook did that itself. If it can do it in France, it can do it in the UK too, but currently it will not.
If Facebook’s position is that it will respond only to official intelligence directing it towards fake activity, then we need to be working to do that too. Our intelligence services need to be on the lookout, if that is the only trigger open to us to get Facebook to act.

Thomas Tugendhat: Sadly, my hon. Friend was not at this week’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, where the national security adviser said that such activity was not the main priority, and, indeed, just spoke generally about security threats. Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be absolutely one of the top priorities?

Damian Collins: Absolutely. It must be a major priority. We have to realise that Russia is engaged in a multi-layered strategy to cause instability in the west, and that fake news and disinformation is one of the tools it uses.
It was interesting to hear in the Select Committee this week that during the Catalan referendum, Russian news agencies RT and Sputnik were the fourth largest source of information, all of it supporting the separatist cause.

Wera Hobhouse: I grew up in cold war Germany. As I have said, these things have been going for decades. When our political group referred to Russia funding German terrorism, we were seen as paranoid fantasists, yet when the wall came down our fears were reconfirmed when the Stasi files were opened. There must be national recognition across the board, and people need to see this as a real threat.

Damian Collins: Absolutely. People must see it as a real threat.
It is not enough for the tech companies just to sit back and say, “We won’t do anything unless you come to us with the evidence. We’re not prepared to conduct our own research on our site about how people are using it and why they are using it.”
I do not believe that individual users of these platforms understand the way in which they can be targeted and the reason they receive the information that they receive. That creates confusing echo chambers, where people are not exposed to a plurality of views but systematically targeted—not just with fake news but with hyper-partisan content. It is being done for propaganda reasons and political reasons by foreign actors. If we do not see that as a threat to the democratic institutions of this country, and a threat to the western way of life, we are deluding ourselves.
The tech companies need to be doing a lot more. I have focused a lot on Facebook, but the same issues apply to Twitter. Twitter has also analysed accounts and information given to it by the US intelligence services. More academic work has been done on analysing those accounts because Twitter is a more open platform and it is possible to do that; in the case of Facebook, which is closed, it is not. The reason much of the interest has been in activity on Twitter is just that it is a more open platform, not because Twitter is being used in such a way and Facebook is not. The tech companies need to do more, and it has to be a higher priority for the intelligence services too.

Ben Bradshaw: It gives me enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). I commend him for the work he is doing. I wrote to his Committee at the beginning of this year suggesting just such an inquiry, and I am absolutely delighted that it is doing one.
When I began asking questions about this issue more than a year ago, it is fair to say that I was treated as a bit of a crank. I am very pleased to say that we now have multiple investigations and inquiries, including that of the hon. Gentleman’s Committee. We have the ISC investigation, multiple investigations by the Electoral Commission, and the Mueller investigations. However, what strikes me, and rather worries me, is that these are all being carried out by independent or parliamentary bodies, not by the Government, who are responsible for maintaining our security and defences, and have the power to get to the truth at the bottom of all this.
I have already put much of the evidence and allegations into the public domain, and time is limited, so I will restrict my remarks to a series of questions for the Minister. I hope that he will begin to address and  explain what seems to be the Government’s insouciance in dealing with this problem. Why are the Government not investigating this threat themselves but leaving it to others such as parliamentary Committees and judicial inquiries—foreign judicial inquiries, at that?
The central question that several hon. Members have already asked is this: have the Government tasked our intelligence and security services with investigating Russian subversion as a high priority? The information I have from my sources is that they have not. If that is the case, why not? Russia is classified as a tier 1 threat, but the six-point national security strategy does not even mention defence against Russian interference in our political system. That is not good enough. I would be grateful if the Minister could listen to these questions, or at least his officials could, so that they can pass him the answers.
What are the Government doing to support the work of the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who has given an admirably robust response to the completely inadequate response from the big tech companies showing nothing short of contempt for Parliament? He needs the Government and the intelligence services to support the very important work that he is doing. What are the Government themselves doing to get the tech companies to reveal Russian ad purchases and make it easier to identify and block troll, bot and other Russian-backed accounts on social media? What discussions have the Government had with UK media companies about adopting the kind of voluntary agreement that was reached very successfully in France not to report material that had been accessed by illegal hacking?
What co-operation are the Government giving to the Mueller inquiry? When the Foreign Secretary last answered a question from me on this, he said that he had received no request for help from Mueller. However, given that several of the senior figures who have already been indicted by Mueller conducted their central activities here in Britain, it is completely inconceivable to me that there could not have been contacts between the US investigators and authorities and the British authorities. So either our own agencies are not keeping the Foreign Secretary in the loop, or he misspoke in his reply to me. Perhaps the Minister would like to set the record straight.
I have tabled several written questions to various Government Departments about contacts between Ministers and the Legatum Institute, and the replies are still outstanding. I would be grateful if the Minister could chase up those replies.
Will the Minister look into, or ask our intelligence and security services to look into, the roles of Vladimir Antonov, who is subject to an EU arrest warrant, and Roman Dubov, and any relationship they may have had in the past with the former UKIP leader, Nigel Farage? Would he care to comment on reports that broke just before this debate started that a man who has been arrested in Ukraine on suspicion of being a Russian spy was photographed with our Prime Minister in Downing Street back in the summer?
This question is more for our party leaders and Whips than the Minister, but surely it is time for British politicians to stop making useful idiots of themselves by appearing on and taking money from Kremlin propaganda outfits such as Russia Today and Sputnik. A lot of the ties between the Putin regime, the far right   and the alt-right are well documented, but it pains me to say that there are still some useful idiots on the left in British and international politics. My message to them is that Russia is a nasty, nationalistic, ultra-conservative and corrupt kleptocracy. It is racist and homophobic, and it makes no secret of the fact that it wants to undermine our democracy. It this debate does anything to give the Government a bit of oomph in tackling this threat and get some reality into our political discourse, it will have been very worth while indeed.

Edward Leigh: We are coming up to Christmas, one of the great feasts of the Christian year that marks the birth of Christ and the bringing of hope to all mankind, but we should recall another event, which is much more recent in time but which happened more than a quarter of a century ago: the dissolution of the Soviet Union on 26 December 1991. When I was elected to this House, 270 million people lived under the direct totalitarian rule of the Soviet Union, with no elections of any meaningful value; and a further 137 million lived in the other countries of the eastern bloc in Europe. On 26 December 1991, Gorbachev went on television to announce that the long nightmare was over. As he went to sign into effect the dissolution of the Soviet Union, his communist-manufactured pen did not work, and he had to borrow a working pen from the CNN camera crew who were filming the event.
We should all believe in the sovereignty of nations and the general principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations. None the less, I think that we should be proud of the part that this country played in the downfall of the USSR and of communism in Europe. Alongside St John Paul II, President Reagan and our own Margaret Thatcher, we were instrumental in resisting totalitarianism and inspiring the captive peoples of Europe to stand up against their communist overlords. At the same time, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary were going on motorbike tours of East Germany. If we might have been accused of interfering in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union then, I think we can be proud of it.
Let us remember to have a sense of proportion. In those years, there were dozens and dozens of Soviet divisions in East Germany and Poland, posing a direct threat to our freedom and democracy, but today we are talking about alleged Russian interference in UK politics and society. We hear things such as “undermining our democracy”, but can we look at the evidence?

John Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: I am about to deal with the evidence, but of course I will give way.

John Spellar: Did not the head of the Federal Security Service say only this week that it sees itself as the spiritual heir of the Cheka and the KGB? Does that not tell us all we need to know?

Edward Leigh: I am not seeking to defend the Putin regime. There is much in Russia that is not perfect. I was a member of the Council of Europe delegation to the presidential elections, and I know it is  not a perfect democracy, but let us keep a sense of proportion. So much progress has been made, and Russia is an infinitely freer and better place than it was under the Soviet Union. It is not perfect, it is not pleasant and it is not our sort of democracy, so I do not defend the Putin regime, but I want to get a sense of proportion in this debate.
Let us look at the evidence from the Oxford Internet Institute, which is part of Oxford University. It investigated more than 100 Russian-linked Twitter accounts and their activity in the run-up to our EU referendum. The results of the investigation are worth noting. It found that
“(1) Russian Twitter accounts shared to the public, contributed relatively little to the overall Brexit conversation, (2) Russian news content was not widely shared among Twitter users, and (3) only a tiny portion of the YouTube content was of a clear Russian origin.”
The fact is that the majority of the UK population—to a significant extent—is not on Twitter.

Damian Collins: I am familiar with the study that my hon. Friend is referring to, but I would just say that it is very narrowly focused. There is also evidence of more than 13,000 bot accounts on Twitter that were believed to be linked to Russia and were deleted very shortly after the referendum. There is a lot that we do not know about this matter, and we need the tech companies to co-operate with us fully so that we understand the scale of it.

Edward Leigh: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee, and of course we must keep a sense of proportion. I am quoting from a well-established institute and I want to give another point of view in this debate, which I think is fair enough.
I mentioned that the majority of the UK population is not on Twitter. Of those Twitter users, the majority do not even log in daily. Facebook did an investigation into the notorious Russian “troll factory” called the Internet Research Agency and found that its advertisements reached fewer than 200 people in Britain during the referendum campaign. If that is the best Russia can do to overturn our long-established parliamentary democracy, I think we can probably rest at ease.

Wera Hobhouse: rose—

Christine Jardine: rose—

Edward Leigh: I will not give way; I have got to finish now. The paranoid tendency to see a red under every bed is very much alive, albeit changed, and there is an explanation for such paranoia. Look at Trump’s victory, and look at the success of Brexit in the referendum. Things are not going the way of the liberals’ world view, and they cannot accept that the people—the workers, even—are abandoning their ideology, presuming that they ever agreed with it in the first place. The left knows that the people are never wrong, so when the people are wrong, as with Brexit or Trump, the left has a psychological need to find some excuse for the people’s misbehaviour.

Wera Hobhouse: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady. Russia is that excuse today. Perhaps the reality is that voters might not agree with the established liberal  consensus on Brexit. Perhaps voters in Britain, America, Poland, Hungary and elsewhere have legitimate concerns that they feel are not being addressed. Those concerns must be addressed, and we in this House must be the ones to address them. Such was the wisdom shown by Disraeli and others in expanding the electorate. Such is the British constitution that it adapts, evolves and bends instead of breaking.
The fact is that the referendum was a free and fair vote of the British people. If there was foreign interference, it was so ineffective that I doubt it made any difference at all to the final result. It was not the work of foreigners somewhere distant, plugging away at computers and unleashing Twitterbots. Authority comes from above but power comes from below, and it came from the people in our referendum. If we do not accommodate the legitimate concerns of ordinary people, we undermine the very foundations of our parliamentary democracy. We might find ourselves being replaced and irrelevant, as Mr Gorbachev did on 26 December 1991.

Mike Gapes: There has always been, on the left of British politics, a group of useful idiots for authoritarian communism, and it has included people who have been very sensible on other issues. I refer Members to “Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation?” written by Sidney and Beatrice Webb in the 1930s. There has also always been, on the far right of politics, a group of admirers of the strong leader, the national identity and the patriotic purpose of the Russian, and even the Soviet, regime. They loved Uncle Joe, and many of them today like Vladimir Putin.
Putin has, over recent years, tried to develop a relationship with various groups in Europe to further his own national interest and ideological goals. He has used, in that process, a man—an ideologist—from the far right who has connections with the American alt-right and with people including Nick Griffin, Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen, who all attended conferences in Russia. That man is Aleksandr Dugin, and Members can google him and read about his vile ideology of trying to create some kind of Eurasian monolith based on authoritarianism and the crushing of religious minorities.
That is the essence of the nature of the Russian state. How is it going to develop? Putin has used that man, who was at one point referred to as “Putin’s Rasputin”. There is some concern in many other European countries about this type of work. On 25 November 2016, the European Parliament carried a resolution, by a very large majority, referring to Russia’s use of
“a wide range of tools…to challenge democratic values”
and to “divide Europe”. Different tools have been used, including the interference in elections, which has already been mentioned, and the attempted coup in Montenegro. The Hungarian regime of Orban has been given financial support via various forms of investment. It acts as an ideological Trojan horse in the European Union against the sanctions on Russia that are the result of the invasion and annexation of Ukraine.

Wera Hobhouse: The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. I really believe it is important to be aware of beginnings. I celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall,  having lived in cold war Germany and I hoped that Russia had changed, but when I went back to Russia only a year ago, people told me that, unfortunately, Russia was facing the same threats and problems that it faced during the cold war, so—

Rosie Winterton: Order. When the hon. Lady makes an intervention, she needs to be brief, because there is a lot of pressure on time.

Mike Gapes: Yes, absolutely. There is an idea that there was a fantastic, miraculous transformation in 1989-90, but, sadly, that was not the case. There is an authoritarian kleptocracy—that word was used earlier—and a regime under which opposition leaders are locked up, journalists disappear or are killed, and polonium is used to murder people on the streets of London. The Russian system of government is not a democracy in any sense that we would understand. Everybody knows that Vladimir Putin is going to be President until 2024 and that this regime will continue, and that is not democracy.
There are very serious flaws in that society, but even more serious is the attempt to undermine cohesion and to sow discord among Europeans in our societies. In the time I have left, I want to mention the kind of tweets put out by the Russian embassy. It put out a picture of a European Union stockade on fire, with a giant Russian bear, and the flag flying over the EU stockade was the LGBT one. That tells us all we need to know about the ideology of the Russian Government and the Russian state. These are not fringe elements; this is the core of the Government.
I refer hon. Members to the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the last Parliament, which was published in March, and the Government response. We must look seriously at these questions. I do a lot of tweets, and I get quite a lot of trolls. Some of them can be identified by the fact that there are eight numbers after the name, because they are produced by algorithms and come at very odd times during the night. I often tweet back, “What’s the weather like in Moscow?” The fact is that we all need to recognise that they are trying to interfere in our politics and to create discord. We need to be vigilant, and the Government must do much more.

Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this debate.
There are some very serious issues to discuss and to bring into the public domain, but I think we need to keep a sense of proportion. I agree with the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) that Russia has not changed its character fundamentally since the days of the Tsar. It has always been somewhat paranoid about the outside world and aggressively defensive, and we see the same characteristics today. However, to describe, as he put it, “the kind of tweets put out by the Russian embassy” in the same terms as the threat we faced during the cold war is to get things a little out of proportion. There are serious issues to discuss, but we should do so responsibly. I want to explain what I mean.

John Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I am very reluctant to take up extra time, but I will briefly give way.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand that Russia, all the way through, has a full-spectrum response. During the cold war, it had all the stuff in the cultural areas and hard power. Has he noticed the size of the recent exercises conducted by Russia in the Baltic? Russia does not see this as different. It is part of a full-spectrum approach.

Bernard Jenkin: I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but the fact is that today’s Russia is a shadow of the power that was the former Soviet Union.

Bob Seely: There is one important difference: although Russia’s conventional weaponry has been somewhat hollowed out, significant investment is going into it—there is significant investment in active measures—and it still has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. Its destructive power is no worse than it was, but it has lost some conventional power, which in many ways makes the international situation more unstable.

Bernard Jenkin: I absolutely concur what my hon. Friend says—I do not want to diminish it at all—but we need to keep cyber-warfare, particularly political interference, in perspective.
The Committee I chair, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, produced a report on “Lessons learned from the EU Referendum” in March. It touched on this issue, and if I may say so, it in fact did so well in advance of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). PACAC will also, I hope, conduct an inquiry on the 2017 general election, and we will continue to investigate these issues.
I should declare a tangential interest in that I was a director of Vote Leave at the time of the referendum. I can attest that we were aware of a certain amount of odd cyber- activity, and we speculated that the crash of the online voter registration system was the result of a cyber-attack. This was and continues to be disputed by the Government, but whether or not it is true, the Government need to create more resilient systems.
PACAC’s report highlighted the need not only to consider the potential for foreign interference in elections or referendums, but to examine the real nature of this potential interference. It found that, while the UK and the US understanding of “cyber” is predominantly technical, Russia and China use what is termed a “cognitive” approach, based on understanding mass psychology and how to exploit the fears of individuals. They are less interested in the apparent intended effect of their activities—whether they alter the balance of the debate or affect peoples’ voting intentions is entirely secondary—but are much more interested in being seen to be able to do what they do. They want to be seen tweaking the nose of the west, flaunting their capability, acting illegally and proving what they can do, and to show that we cannot stop them doing so.
These countries want us to react, and this creates something of a dilemma. They want us to hold debates such as this one. President Putin is manipulating this debate: he will be chortling in the Kremlin at the fact that we are discussing these matters and putting Russia centre stage, because this is exactly what he wants. They  see our reacting to this activity as evidence of their ability to control and manipulate us. It is also important for them to be able to report this to their domestic audience as evidence, however incredible it may seem to us, of their power and influence in the world. This has clear implications for what we understand by a cyber-attack, the nature of such cyber-attacks and how we respond both physically and politically. I commend the Prime Minister for adopting a tough stance on this and for the establishment of the national cyber-security centre in 2016, but we need to use this work to gain a better understanding of the real motivations behind it.
The Government published their response to PACAC’s report on the EU referendum in a Command Paper yesterday, and I very much welcome it. The Government say they are taking the issue of cyber-security extremely seriously: the centre played an important role in monitoring key systems for unusual activity in the run-up to the 2017 general election, and the Cabinet Office convened a dedicated monitoring and response cell throughout the election period to ensure that any risks emerging in the immediate run-up to and during the election were co-ordinated effectively. In their response to PACAC’s report, the Government say they will continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators in assessing the threat to the UK’s democratic process and implementing further measures to mitigate the risks.
Although we can be assured that our paper-based voting system is much more difficult to manipulate than an electronic one, we remain vulnerable to the broader attempt to use social media in elections as a platform for influence. Further consideration should be given to the Electoral Commission’s recommendation in 2014 that the law be changed to require online campaign advertising to have the equivalent of an imprint. The control of offshore operators, however, is extremely difficult.
I encourage the Government to ensure that any efforts to assess the threat include an analysis of the motivations and approaches taken by key actors, and the level of threat that they represent. I encourage them to ensure that that work is translated into an effective and co-ordinated response, and further to our report, I call again on the Government to commit to presenting annual reports to Parliament on these matters.
We must avoid the temptation to overreact and start suggesting that massive changes to public opinion have been created by this relatively tiny amount of social media activity. Otherwise, we are playing exactly into what the Russians want—we are questioning the very processes that they want us to question, and asking the questions that they want to generate. We must avoid doing that because it is completely unnecessary.

Phil Wilson: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this important debate. The world is interdependent in a way that it has never been before, and it is understandable that it creates insecurity and uncertainty when once intimate communities now become atomised. People are looking for solace in identity politics, and nationalism becomes the plaything of populists. Facebook and Twitter have become the populists’ perfect  dwelling place, where the woes of the world can be expounded in advert form, and dogma in bite-sized chunks. Today that medium is just as likely to be used as a means of spreading lies, half-truths and quackery of all descriptions. Indeed, Facebook acknowledges that well over 100 million US citizens—a third of the US electorate—had seen Russian-promoted disinformation in the period leading up to the 2016 presidential elections.
In The Sunday Times in October, John Lanchester carried out an investigation into Facebook and said that Russia’s use of the media
“focused on American fragmentation, and sought to exacerbate the country’s social and political divides. It used Facebook’s algorithmic targeting to focus on what it already knew people thought, and gave them more of the same. It used falsehoods, knowing that the company had no real interest in weeding them out. It manipulated people’s feelings. The people behind that campaign had done a better job of studying Facebook’s innate amorality and potential for misuse than anyone in government.”
Russia, it seems, is expert at using social media to twist arguments to feed populists and sow division.
Investigations by journalists such as Carole Cadwalladr in The Guardian have revealed links between Russian involvement in the Brexit referendum and UK society in general, and thousands of Twitter accounts based in Russia were active during that referendum. More importantly, Leave.eu is now being investigated by the Electoral Commission about the true origin of its funding. Other speakers can go into great detail about that, but I want to mention one or two things about Putin’s intentions.
Putin is a nationalist who will promote nationalist parties in the EU, which could lead to the fracture and fragmentation of European states and institutions. At the same time, he is a leader who is prepared to ignore the sovereignty of other countries such as Ukraine. He will use every device at his disposal to ensure that his opponents are divided and discontent, and that grievances are fed. He knows how to play to the tune of identity politics.
One reason why I was so opposed to Brexit was because I knew that by leaving the EU we would be playing the Russians’ game for them. A divided economic union on Russia’s doorstep would suit them nicely, and that is where we find ourselves today. With my work  on the Defence Committee, I worry about Trump’s commitment to NATO and the kind of trade deal that we will get with a USA that puts America first. There is the question of our ability as a nation to defend ourselves adequately as we pursue a more independent defence strategy, because of a belief in some quarters that we can secure an independent trade strategy as a result of Brexit. That approach has consequences for our military defence capacity to ensure that we can secure trade links as a global trading power.
Defence strategists and experts I have talked to have said that we cannot continue to contribute as we do to NATO while pursuing an independent defence strategy. We cannot do both because we cannot afford to, and that is another win for Putin. What Putin wants—perhaps we are starting to see this now—is the great unravelling of old alliances and international institutions to his benefit. We cannot allow that to happen because, I believe, our way of life is at risk.
Liberal democracy is being challenged in a way that I do not think has happened since the 1930s. I do not believe that Putin wants a military conflict, but in the 21st century there is more than one way to confront perceived adversaries, and that includes cyber-attacks and disinformation that enters society under the radar. We must tighten up regulation around political advertising, including social media, and we must look more closely at the potential for foreign powers to fund our politics. We must ask more of social media organisations, because if they do nothing to tighten their regulations, the Government will have to step in. Politicians have a responsibility to take a step back and think afresh about what social media has actually created, and doing that would be to the benefit of our democracies.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Due to the large number of interventions that colleagues have taken, which always has implications for others, after the next speaker I must reduce the time limit to four minutes.

Julian Lewis: In the light of what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not take any interventions.
I wish to ask whether any hon. Member in the Chamber—other than perhaps the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar)—feels a flicker of recognition when they hear the names of the following organisations: the World Federation of Trade Unions, the International Union of Students, the World Federation of Scientific Workers, the World Federation of Democratic Youth, and —above all—the World Peace Council. Those were part of a magnificent array of Soviet international propaganda front organisations that plied their disreputable trade through half a century from the end of the 1940s right up until the downfall of the Soviet Union. They were well funded, very active and almost wholly—at least as far as the United Kingdom was concerned—ineffective, because they were clunky and did not really understand the way that British people and parliamentarians think and operate.
I have heard something in every speech and intervention made today with which I agreed. We are all on the same page. We all understand that Russia is not a modern constitutional democracy and that it will do everything within its power to promote its messages and undermine the messages of those whom it perceives to be its adversaries. I always hesitate to cite one of the most evil men who ever walked the face of the earth—Dr Joseph Goebbels—but he knew a thing or two about propaganda, and one of his central tenets was that the purpose of propaganda is not to change people’s minds; it is to find out what they already believe, and reinforce it.
There is a very good reason for that. Except when dealing with young minds that have not had a chance to form their value systems and opinions—that is a big and important exception—I have come to the conclusion, through working in this field for a long time before I first entered the House, that people are much more resistant to the effect of propaganda than they are given  credit for when it comes to changing their minds. The effect of barrages of propaganda might be to dishearten them, but it will not generally convert them unless they are impressionable, and most people are not.

Bob Seely: rose—

Julian Lewis: I said that I would not give way, and I am afraid that I will not out of consideration for others.
Let me follow up the argument that was developed by the hon. Member for Ilford South when he spoke about different stages in society. I think that, apart from failed states, there are three main types of society: totalitarian extremism, ruthless authoritarianism, and constitutional democracy. Sometimes, we have the choice between only the first and the second, because the third takes time to evolve.
The reason why the Russia of today, although dangerous, is not nearly as dangerous as the Soviet Union of yesterday is that it has moved largely from totalitarian extremism to ruthless kleptocratic authoritarianism.
The reason why totalitarian extremism is more dangerous is that it has an ideology that finds resonance in the target societies—for example, the ideology of the workers’ paradise. There are no fifth columnists of young British people who are bowled over by the masculinity, alleged or real, of Vladimir Putin, but there were plenty who were fooled by the concept of a workers’ paradise.
So by all means be careful and by all means recognise that Twitter can affect young impressionable minds, but remember one thing: to defend ourselves properly we need to defend ourselves in the field of cyber against cyber-attack on our infrastructure, rather than worrying too much about ineffective propaganda measures.

Chris Bryant: I admire the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and he said some good things, but ultimately I found it his speech to be utterly naive and complacent. He cannot just say “Russia is a kleptocracy and there we are; that’s fine.” It is also a ruthless security state: it prevents elections; it prevents journalists from doing their proper jobs; it murders journalists; and it makes sure that journalists elsewhere in the world are put out of their jobs and are unable to scrutinise Russia properly.
Even the Russian embassy in the UK flouts every single one of the normal rules of an embassy. It wrote to Mr Speaker on a previous occasion to try to prevent a debate on Russia taking place. On other occasions,  it has tweeted aggressively against several Members. It even tried to rig the election of the chair of the all-party group on Russia. One would think it had more important things to do. I am the present chair, and the former chair, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), is in his place on the Government Benches. He departed because he was so fed up with the way the Russian embassy was dealing with us.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) may say something about this later—he is more of an expert than I am—but the Russians are engaged in a form of hybrid warfare. It does not involve military weapons so much, although they are keen to continuously flex those muscles and we know, from Georgia and Ukraine and  what has happened in Crimea, that they are territorially ambitious. I just want to explain one element of this hybrid warfare.
I asked a man called Ben Nimmo, who runs digital forensic research at the Atlantic Council, to look at MPs’ Twitter accounts, including those of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, myself and others and analyse the attacks we had received. I and others—the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to this earlier—believe that some anonymous troll accounts are centrally organised from St Petersburg.
The pattern is that the accounts often pretend to be British, even though they might originally have been tweeting in Russian. They tend to tweet in bad English and at Russian times of day. They infiltrate the hard right to propagate and amplify views held by others—that relates to the point about Goebbels that was made earlier—and they ostentatiously, aggressively and with foul language attack critics of Putin. They support the Kremlin line on Syria, George Soros, the Olympic ban, Ukraine, the M17 flight and Senator McCain.
The accounts tag other factory troll accounts. For instance, @iatetwit attacked Lucy Fisher, the journalist at The Times who has written about this, and me. It looks like a normal account, but the profile picture is of a Russian skater. It is not her account at all. It used to tweet in Russian, but now tweets very aggressive anti-immigration stuff in the UK. “I” effing “hate Irish”, for instance, was one of the more expressive recent tweets, and @iamjohnsmith called on the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington to resign. [Interruption.] Well, that of itself does not prove it is a bad person. But seriously, he was only being attacked because of his political views. This is why it is dangerous for us to be complacent: there is a specific body of work attacking Twitter accounts to intimidate British MPs.

Julian Knight: I concur with many of the speeches we have heard today. I believe this is a major threat to our democracy, to western democracy and to our way of life. It is probably the biggest threat I have experienced since the fall of the Berlin wall. At that time, there was a book written by an academic called Fukuyama about the end of history and suggesting that liberal democracy was effectively the final form of government. That now looks quite arrogant and hubristic as, over the years, Russia’s transformation has crept up on us.
There is, effectively, a type of war going on. It may not involve guns, armies and conventional threats, but it does involve bots and St Petersburg. In Russia, the state means society and society means the state. It feeds through many strata of Russian society. In many respects, Russia has been quite open about this. In 2013 and 2014, there were many public utterances from Russian generals who talked about information and the future being hybrid war. That is precisely what we have seen.
Russia is not the only country involved. As I understand it, about 25 to 28 countries are developing this type of global capability. If we all—even what we consider to be friendly nations—turn on one another and adopt these  sorts of tactics, all could be lost. So we need to think about how we tackle this. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is currently investigating fake news, but perhaps a bigger issue is the use of algorithms, which allow access to target those who will internalise fake news.
During the US elections, swing states were targeted, especially individuals who were particularly susceptible to this type of fake news. There is currently a major debate about whether Facebook and other social media platforms are publishers, but we need to concentrate on the algorithms and on how we can get into those black boxes that tell us precisely how they work. We need to understand them and to introduce regulation with proper oversight. The danger of making Facebook a publisher is that with responsibility can come enormous power. It decides what goes online and it can dictate the discourse. That is too much power to put into its hands.
Social media companies need to co-operate more with the Select Committee and with international bodies. They, too, are invested in our society and our western ways. Unless they come to the party in this respect, there could be some real problems down the line.
On Brexit, I do not think the evidence is quite there at the moment in terms of the level of interference seen in the French elections, but it seeped in almost by osmosis. In Germany, a lot of fake stories appeared in relation to immigration. They affected people’s outlook and had an impact.

Paul Flynn: It is unfortunate that the Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has left us. I served on the Committee and I believe that it would have been very helpful if he had informed the House about the organisation, in which he had a leading role during the referendum, that is under investigation by the Electoral Commission. I have served on the Committee for three Parliaments and I am ashamed that we are neglecting the most prominent issue before us.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) need not be shy about being premature in raising the issue. We had a debate on it in the Committee, and produced our report at the end of the last Parliament. We said that the Electoral Commission had told us that it was powerless to control information from abroad.
The role of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has been taken up by other Committees, and we are grateful to them for what they have done. A House of Lords Committee took it up the other day, when the Electoral Commission’s chief executive said that, as a UK-based regulator applying UK-based laws, the commission could do nothing about activity on the internet that was taking place outside the UK.
A year after the threat to us was flagged up, we are told that the Electoral Commission has no powers and that an investigation is taking place. The chief executive told us last year that the only organisation that could act was GCHQ, and nothing seems to have happened there. We are trying to control our elections with the tools of the steam age rather than those of the digital  age. I raised the issue in my final point of order of the last Parliament, and Mr Speaker’s reaction was kind as always, but his main problem was that he did not know what an algorithm was.
Having been warned about these matters, we must realise that our elections and referendums are up for sale. People can spend large amounts of money—not just in Russia but in America—to obtain a certain end in our campaigns here. We are in a worse position than we have been at any time since 1880. There has also been the degradation of our political debate. It is possible to put forward a preposterous lie, which, if repeated enough, is believed and allowed with no censure.
The Office for National Statistics is the arbiter on these matters and the keeper of the truth, but it was the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority who complained that the Foreign Secretary and the present Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had made a claim that was demonstrably untrue, using a gross figure about the money that might be coming to the health service. Those two MPs were not summoned to the Committee to account for themselves, because the Committee refused to summon them, but it did summon David Norgrove, the man who had pointed out the error. As a result of that degradation, big lies have been told in other campaigns as well, such as the campaign for the alternative vote.
We no longer respect objective truths. People can lie with impunity and get away with it. We know that a great many people were interested in distorting the referendum and election issues, and we have no defences against that.

Bob Seely: I should put on record that I have been doing some academic research on Russian conventional and non-conventional warfare. I lived in the Soviet Union and in post-Soviet states between 1990 and 1994, and I have recently made about seven trips to Ukraine and the Baltic republics for research purposes.
I thank the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for initiating the debate, and for the spirit in which it is taking place. I think the best way I can help is by giving a few definitions, either Russian or my own, and then making some suggestions to the Minister.
In my view, the most important thing we can achieve is to avoid worsening relations with Russia and do what we can to minimise the chances of conflict, which are small but genuine. At the same time, however, we need to call out Russian malign intent, understand what is happening, and take firm action when it is required. It  is clear that the Kremlin opposes liberal democracy  and sees it as a threat. Its doctrines imply a conflict of values. We see that in the Russian foreign policy concepts, two of which have emerged in the last 20 years, and in the information security doctrine, the recent national security strategy and the three military doctrines that have also appeared in the past two decades.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) talked about the conceptualisation of active measures and about hybrid war. In contemporary Russian doctrine, the first characteristic of military conflict is  the combining of “people power” with military and non-military tools. It has been described as the
“integrated use of force, political, economic, informational and other measures of a non-military character, implemented with the extensive use of protest potential of the population and Special Operations forces”.
That is my slightly rough translation of the original. It refers to cyber and espionage as well as traditional, physical special forces operations.
Contemporary military conflict involves the integrated use of all tools, and vote-rigging is very much part of that. I have come across more than 50 such tools, too many to list here, but they can be divided into six categories. There is information warfare, of which we are seeing a great deal in this country, and in which I would include the substance of cyber. There is soft power: culture, religion, governance and law. That is more applicable to eastern Europe than to us. There are subversive political tactics. They date from the old Soviet active measures of which my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) will be well aware: assassination, blackmail, kompromat—the stuff that the Russians may or may not have on President Trump; we hope not, but who knows? Those tools were developed by the KGB, and have been re-championed by FSB and the GRU. There are also diplomacy and public outreach, economic tools, and conventional  and non-conventional military tools.
To those six elements we should add another two: command and control. Journalists often miss that out because they do not think it particularly interesting, but for diplomats, soldiers and, one presumes, spooks—people who are trying to understand them—the command and control structures are important. Finally, there is control through “psychological chess”. The Russians call it “reflective control”, and it is a way of leading opponents to their own demise.
I have been filleting my speech, and I have 45 seconds in which to tell the Minister what I think we need to do. I suggest that he should remember what was happening in the United States in the 1980s. It had a House Intelligence Committee which reported twice a year. It was a standing, powerful Committee which used a great many experts from across the range to publicise its results in order to inoculate society against the lies that were told. We need such a Committee. I shall write about that to various Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), in the new year. We need a powerful Committee that can look at matters holistically. Russian warfare is holistic, and ours needs to be as well.
We also need a standing group of experts. In the United States in the 1980s, the Active Measures Working Group was very successful in bringing to light the warfare activities of the Soviets and presenting the evidence to Mr Gorbachev.

Jim Shannon: I thank the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for raising this issue today. I am always interested in what my learned friend, as I would call him, has to say. We agree on many things, although not on everything.
When I sat on the Defence Committee, along with Members who are present today, an issue that was often drawn to our attention was the influence of Russia through cyber-technology, radio stations and other media.
I am a staunch Brexiteer, and I was so pleased that the result of the referendum reflected what I believed was best, and still believe is best, for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am proud to represent the constituency of Strangford, which is a mixture of rural and urban, of city workers and villages, and which I believe contains a fair representation of the views of the United Kingdom. Strangford voted to leave. The question is, do I believe that that was achieved by Russian interference? Some Members have argued that there was an attempt to influence our vote, and the part of me that enjoys spy films has perked up: I want to see how the conspiracy works.
I am in no way casting aspersions on anyone who has spoken today. Members have their own opinions, and they have a right to those opinions, but they must also accept the ballot-box decision of June 2016. If they accept that, they should work with the rest of us to ensure that Brexit happens. I am simply trying to ascertain whether Russian influence changed the outcome of the referendum, and I have to say that I do not believe it did. I believe that my fishing community in Portavogie and the surrounding villages, who have seen their livelihood and their villages decimated by the structure imposed by the common fisheries policy, decided that enough was enough. They had had enough of Europeans’ lining their pockets at the expense of our fishermen in our seas catching our fish. They were fed up to the back teeth with bureaucrats sitting in centrally heated offices in Brussels making decisions about how many fish should be caught in Portavogie, along the coasts of County Down and elsewhere. They wanted out.
It is my opinion that the farmers who have been tangled in red tape and regulation for too many years, and who can rely on the Government to support and facilitate them, wanted out. The people on the street who see the money going to Europe with little return—and who want our money to stay here and be handed to those areas of need such as education and health, instead of being used to erect monuments in European cities—wanted out. We made our own minds up.
A balanced argument demands that I also highlight the people in my constituency who wanted to stay in, and who believed, “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.” There were those who were concerned about how local business and trade with Europe would continue, and there were those who were concerned about how their business would continue, and they voted to remain, as was their right. I visited those businesses and got their opinions, which I have fed into Government through my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the Brexit Committee, to make sure that they are a part of the strategy the Government are trying to pursue. I must also say that these businesses have since put in place plans to secure their business and to ensure that they survive and thrive. That is what we do in my constituency, and it is what we should do in this House.
Was Russian influence at play? Did the Russians skew the vote? No, I do not believe they did. My constituents are intelligent people with a good understanding. They voted with their heads and hearts, and I do not believe  for a second that a Twitter or a Facebook campaign affected this in any way. I believe the waiting lists in the hospitals and the problems with education were major issues, alongside the true driver of taking back our sovereignty and independence. That was what the vote was about.
The people have voted to ask us to do this, and we must deliver on that, regardless of any Russian campaign. It is clear to me that the people want out, and they want the Brexiteers, like me, and everybody else in this Chamber to be of the same opinion.

Stephen Gethins: This has been a fascinating debate and this is an opportune time for it; I thank the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for securing it.
It is also opportune to reflect on the fact that we are not the first to experience this. I had the great fortune a number of years ago, before I was an MP, to work in the former Soviet Union, and to have worked in Tbilisi for several years. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) pointed out in his excellent contribution, anybody who has spent time in the former Soviet Union will know that what we have experienced and are experiencing is not new; the tactic has been deployed over decades rather than just the past few months. It is useful for us to reflect on that. It is also illustrates why our engagement with the Ukrainians, the Georgians and others who have experience of this is so important.
As has been said, this debate is not about our relationship with the people of Russia. The people of Russia are wonderful, with their rich culture and rich history; the Russian Federation is the most extraordinary, diverse and wonderful country. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is not in his place at the moment, but he said he did not want this debate to take place. I welcome the fact that it is taking place, however, and I want to use it to highlight the impact Vladimir Putin has had on his own people.
Last year, I spent some time studying the conflict in Chechnya. It is a much-forgotten conflict, but in 2003 the United Nations described Grozny as the most destroyed city on earth. It is easy to forget the devastating impact the current President of the Russian Federation has had on his own people; it is a far more devastating impact than he has had on people elsewhere in the world. It is always worth bearing that in mind.
I recommend a Foreign Affairs Committee report from a couple of years ago, that the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and I, along with other colleagues, put together. It was—as always, thanks to our officials—a thoughtful and useful piece of work, and I want to reflect on the evidence we took.
Some of the most impactful evidence we took was in St Petersburg. We invited groups from around the Russian Federation to come and give evidence, and learned of the impact of the Russian regime on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups who have been threatened and bullied, and lawyers who fight for the rule of law with incredible courage that all of us in this House should reflect on.
The most impactful group I personally met was the Union of the Committees of Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia. These were the women whose young men, and often young women, had been sent into the army, sometimes to fight, and who had sometimes lost family members, and could not get information about them. That is devastating for any family, and we would do well to reflect on the ongoing suffering of the people of Russia, and in particular on the bravery of the women of the Union of the Committees of Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia. I encourage the Minister and all Members to reflect on that.
I have appeared on RT. The report we produced was incredibly critical of RT, and I remember asking its representatives, “Will you give us evidence of where you’ve been critical of Russian actions in Syria?” They gave us none; it was, I think, the only bit of evidence they did not want to give us. So I thought I should go on RT, because if we are going to criticise an organisation, we should give it the opportunity to answer back.

Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs inquiry. He will also recall that when we took evidence from RT and Sputnik, we were told that they had a charter just like the BBC’s. We asked, “Where is it? Is it published?” They said, “We’ll send it to you.” As far as I am aware, it was never received by the Committee, however.

Stephen Gethins: As always, the hon. Gentleman has a fine recollection of the facts and makes an excellent point.
It is important to state that Russia is one of the most dangerous places on earth to be a journalist. It is worth putting on the record the extraordinary bravery of journalists going right back to those who covered the conflicts in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia and North Ossetia, as well as over the border in the ongoing conflicts in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and of course Nagorno-Karabakh. Those areas do not often get debated because of everything else that is going on.
What is the solution to this problem? It is clear that our work with the EU has been very important. I hope that, regardless of where Members stand in the debate on leave or remain and where we sit in this Chamber, we will agree that the Minister must commit to continuing with our key partnerships with those organisations. The EU has a huge role to play. In terms of the development of the economy and the rule of law, we have done some extraordinary work with these organisations in Ukraine, the south Caucasus and elsewhere, and I hope the Minister will commit to continuing that.
I also pay tribute to the soft power that can be ongoing. We can do an extraordinary amount of work in cultural diplomacy, and I pay tribute to the British Council and others who are doing some fantastic work, including people who have worked for years in this area, such as Craig Oliphant—formerly of the FCO—Jonathan Cohen and Dennis Sammut. These are extraordinary people who have done extraordinary work in building our relations and understanding.
Finally, I say again that we must continue to work with the EU in stabilising and working with, and giving a carrot to, the countries that are threatened by the Russian Federation. The greatest threat to independence  and sovereignty is not to the UK; it is often to the countries of the western Balkans, the Baltics and the south Caucasus.

Liam Byrne: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this important debate.
The argument I want to make is that, unlike our agencies, the Government have been tragically late in waking up to the new world-view that President Putin set out with such clarity and force after his re-election as President in 2012. I also want to set out the opportunity, the means and the motive which have driven Russia to intervene in our democracy, and then to propose to the Minister a number of areas where I think we can work together on reform over the year to come.
Let me start with the motive, however. We have heard a lot, in particular from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), about the history of this, and that motive is important to underline. After Putin returned to the presidency in 2012, he offered a very different view about the possibilities of co-operation with the west from those he harboured during his first term. That world-view was not a secret. He set it out with great clarity in his 2013 state of the nation address, where he gave us the theory to match the fury he offered the world in his Munich security conference speech of 2007. He attacked what he called the “post-Christian” west of “genderless and infertile liberalism”, he attacked the Europeans who he said embraced an “equality of good and evil”, and he attacked what he said was a west trapped in moral relativism, lost in a vague sense of identity. Europeans, argued President Putin, had begun
“renouncing their roots, including Christian values, which underlie Western civilization.”
The Kremlin-backed Centre for Strategic Communications had a headline for this story. It described the pitch as “Putin: world conservatism’s new leader”. But of course, this world view has nothing to do with traditional conservatism. It has a great deal to do with the new trends of the alt-right. It has nothing to do with the party of Disraeli.
If Mr Putin were content to confine his philosophy to the limits of his own borders, we would not be having this debate. However, the reality is that he has set out systematically to wreck the vision, the legacy and the record of President Gorbachev, who set out, between 1987 and 1989, a very different view of the way in which Russia and Europe could work together to create what he called “an all-European home”, subject to a common legal space and governed by the European convention on human rights. That is not a view that President Putin shares. There is no all-European home for President Putin. Instead, we see a systematic effort to divide, rule, confound and confuse.
That brings us to the means of Russia’s new strategy. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) did us a favour by sketching out the history of active measures. They have a long history in Russian warfare techniques. Major Kalugin, who was the KGB’s highest-ranking defector to the west, described the approach as
“the heart and soul of Soviet intelligence”.
Since 2012, under General Gerasimov, this doctrine has now been renewed. Some call it a doctrine, and some call it a philosophy, but the idea is that
“the very rules of war have changed”,
and that the role of non-military means of intervention behind an opponent’s lines is now very different.
As Anne Applebaum and Peter Pomerantsev of the London School of Economics have set out, these new tactics are characterised by opportunism and involve an unregulated network of propagandists whose material is distributed online. They point out that Russia is now operating in a post-truth environment, and there is no attempt to win people over to a Russian view of the world. There is simply an attempt to confuse and confound.
The way in which this goes to market in the west, however, is through an unholy alliance with extreme leftist groups and extreme right groups. Its aim is to polarise and divide, and to tear down the words on the coat of arms here in the Chamber, which state that we have “more in common” than sets us apart. If we look at the 45 new parties that have been created in Europe over the past 10 to 20 years, we see a clear majority that have some sympathy with Russia. They include Germany’s AFD, Austria’s FPO, the Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary, the Front National in France, the Northern League in Italy and, indeed, the United Kingdom Independence party.
All those parties have taken a pro-Russia position on matters of huge international interest. The Front National, for example, was given significant loans by Kremlin-backed banks. If we look at the AFD’s relationship with Russia, we see how broadcasters such as Sputnik and Russia-linked accounts systematically intervened to attack Chancellor Merkel and to support the AFD. If we look at the relationship with UKIP, we can see very close links. Nigel Farage famously said that President Putin was the leader that he most admired, back in 2014. In the European Parliament, UKIP has taken consistent positions in favour of the Russian annexation of Crimea. The Atlantic Council has analysed a number of policy positions and concluded that UKIP MEPs
“made similar statements blaming the EU for the Ukraine crisis and asserting Russia’s right to intervene in the ‘near abroad’.”
Looking at all this in the round, the US intelligence community concluded that Russia was intervening systematically abroad in the west, and it would be naive of us to think that Russia was not trying to intervene here in this country.

Bob Seely: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Liam Byrne: I will not give way, because of the lack of time.
That takes us to the heart of the reform agenda that we need to look at. It has now become clear that there is a dark social playbook that is being used to great effect. We have hackers such as Cozy Bear hacking emails, and they work in partnership with useful idiots such as Wikileaks. Alongside them, we have what are politely called alternative news sites. These include Sputnik, Russia Today and, frankly, Leave.EU, Westmonster and Breitbart. They work hard to circulate news that will create a row on Twitter, then the troll farms kick in. The  material is then sucked into private Facebook groups, at which point dark money is switched behind those ads to circulate them widely.
The study that I have commissioned for today’s debate from the data science firm Signify will be of interest to Conservative Members. It looked at the terrible front page in The Daily Telegraph attacking Conservative Members for being “Brexit mutineers”. Leave.EU and Westmonster probably picked up that story. Westmonster published the original content. Leave.EU then amplified the story on Twitter and Facebook channels, calling Conservative Members “a cancer” and “Tory Traitors”. Standard social listening tools show that the Twitter account attracted about 1,300 interactions. On the original post, there were only 44 interactions, yet the post on Facebook secured more than 23,000 interactions. The difference is explained by the fact that money, run in this case by Voter Consultancy Ltd, was being switched behind the story in order to attack, influence and attempt to suborn Conservative Members in the debates that we have had over the past week or two. Interestingly, Voter Consultancy Ltd is a dormant company, so we do not know quite where the money was coming from. It has, however, just set up an interesting subsidiary called Disruptive Communications, together with a man called John Douglas Wilson Carswell, formerly of this parish.
My point is that we now have a well-established playbook involving a method of creating rows on Twitter and sucking their content into Facebook using dark money. The ads are not going to everybody. Firms such as Cambridge Analytica or Aggregate IQ are very effectively targeting the ads at a particular demographic.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Liam Byrne: I will not give way.
There is now a motive, a means and a method for Russia to intervene in democracy that we must be aware of. The challenge that we face is that our legislation is completely out of date. The chairman of the Electoral Commission, Sir John Holmes, has openly warned that a perfect storm is putting
“our democratic processes in peril”
and called for urgent steps to deliver transparency in political advertising. We have regulation for social media firms under the European e-commerce directive of 2000, but that was written before social media firms grew to their present size and scale. Because they are treated as platforms, rather than publishers, Ofcom will not regulate them as broadcasters.
The Electoral Commission has confirmed to me that it cannot use civil sanctioning power on non-UK based individuals, or on conduct that takes place outside the UK. That is significant because—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who is not in his place, said—there is a risk that money came in from abroad to support campaigns. The Advertising Standards Authority has expressed to me its grave disquiet that it can ban broadcast political advertising but it cannot ban political advertising in targeted social media platforms.
There are five key steps that we need to take. First, it is ludicrous that the national security strategy does not include a specific objective to defend the integrity of  our democracy. Secondly, we need to review the e-commerce directive, as Lord Bew has recommended, and if the Government do not bring forward consultation on such a change, we on the side of the House will do so. Thirdly, it is time to look again at the Communications Act 2003. In particular, we want to know why the Electoral Commission is not using its power to investigate collusion between Aggregate IQ and Cambridge Analytica. Fourthly, the Electoral Commission obviously needs new powers. Fifthly, we need to pick up on what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) said about a different generation of responses, like the active measures working group. I shall finish with a line from Abraham Lincoln, who said that
“the price of freedom is constant vigilance.”
We cannot let a new cyber-curtain disguise what our opponents are up to. It is time that this Government opened their eyes and started acting.

Matthew Hancock: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak today, and I thank the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for bringing forward this topic for debate.
It is of course the first role of Government to protect the nation and its people and to safeguard our democracy, and we recognise and acknowledge the concern expressed by the House today about the threat posed to our politics and society by the exploitation of digital technology and platforms. We are happy to work with Members across the House on this. Of course, digital technology brings huge benefits and we celebrate the freedom that they bestow, but they also allow malign actors new means by which to communicate. We are committed to defending the UK from all forms of malign state interference, whether from Russia or anywhere else. When there is any suggestion that the Kremlin has sought to interfere in the political process, we treat such allegations seriously and carefully. The position is that, to date, we have not yet seen evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes by a foreign Government.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because there is an interesting divergence between the three Ministers who have spoken on this topic. The first response was, “I have seen no evidence that the Russians were trying to do anything”, and then the version that we have heard today is, “I have not seen any successful interventions.” What would success be? How is he defining success? I presume he means that there have been attempts.

Matthew Hancock: We have seen no evidence of interference that has successfully affected democratic outcomes in the UK by a foreign Government. That has been the UK Government position for some time.

Chris Bryant: What would success be?

Matthew Hancock: In a political process, success would potentially involve changing the result of that political process, and we have not seen evidence of successful attempts.

Julian Knight: Part of the reason we are finding it so difficult to establish the impact is the lack of information coming from the social media companies. Will my right   hon. Friend therefore join me in calling on Facebook in particular to co-operate thoroughly with the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely, and I will come on to express that in some pretty firm terms later in my speech. The point is that we have not yet seen evidence of successful attempts, but we remain vigilant none the less. I can assure the House that the whole of Government are alert to the threat and that we are working across Government on it.

Damian Collins: Aside from the evidence that has been published out of the American inquiry, do the Government have evidence of intent, whether or not that activity was successful as they define it?

Matthew Hancock: As several Members pointed out in the debate, there is already evidence of activity in the public domain. The question is about the scale of that activity and whether it is significant or not significant. As I say, there is not yet evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes.

Bernard Jenkin: I, too, question the criteria for success, because there is evidence of success in that it is provoking consternation at and the questioning of democratic results and policies in our country. Those are the criteria for success. We want to hear that GCHQ will aggressively target the generation of such material, do its best to block it and be much more proactive, but perhaps the Minister is coming to that point.

Matthew Hancock: I will come on to that important point in relation to the cyber-attacks.
As the Prime Minister made clear in her speech at the Guildhall in November, we want to build a more productive relationship with Russia, but we also want to see Russia play its full and proper role in the rules-based international order. We will therefore not hesitate in calling out behaviour that undermines that order or threatens our interests at home and overseas.

Liam Byrne: If there was no evidence of successful intervention, was there evidence of unsuccessful intervention? If so, what was it?

Matthew Hancock: Some evidence has already been declared, such as Facebook’s declaration that there had been some paid-for advertising by organisations that were also involved in US democratic processes. However, as we know, the scale of the activity that has been declared by Facebook is extremely small, amounting to $0.97. I will get on to the point about the transparency of information, because we do not think that that amount credibly represents the whole gamut of activity.
We have identified Russia as responsible for a sustained campaign of cyber-espionage and disruption around the world. When we have seen the Kremlin deploy disinformation in an attempt to sow division and meddle in overseas elections, and to deflect attention away from international incidents, such as the downing of MH17 or the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, we have rightly raised those concerns on the international stage. However challenging our relationship might sometimes be, it is also essential that we keep the channels of communication open to the Kremlin and the Russian people. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Secretary  of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be in Moscow tomorrow. While there, he will firmly and clearly raise our concerns over the use of disinformation and cyber, and he will reaffirm the Prime Minister’s message, given at the Guildhall, about wanting to see a more productive relationship, built on mutual trust.

Stephen Gethins: I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way. On that productive relationship and cultural exchanges—he may not be able to answer this question just now, but he can write to me or ask the Foreign Secretary to write to me—will he guarantee funding for organisations such as the British Council, which is doing remarkable work in places such as Russia?

Matthew Hancock: Of course we support the British Council. The hon. Gentleman made a good speech, but I felt slightly sorry for him, because the former leader of the SNP is on RT, taking RT’s shilling. I can confirm that Alex Salmond’s show is already under investigation by Ofcom. It is rather difficult for the SNP spokesman to say anything on this matter when he is completely contradicted in his attitude and tone by his former leader.

Stephen Gethins: I did not want to intervene again, but I feel obliged to do so. The Minister refers to a former Member of Parliament, but current Conservative Members are getting paid for appearances on RT. Does he think that that should be cracked down on?

Matthew Hancock: It is wholly inappropriate to appear on RT, and I certainly would not do so myself, but the SNP needs to take a cold, hard look at itself and its relationship in that regard, because I do feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman, who made quite a good speech and lots of good points.
I want to respond to some of the points raised in the debate. The right hon. Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) asked that this matter be a top priority for our national security strategy, and I can tell them that we take all allegations seriously and reassure them that the Russian threat, in all its forms, is a tier-1 national security issue.
Turning to the points made by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, he asked whether there had been discussions with Facebook and others. The answer is that there have, and they have been led by DCMS, because we lead the overall relationship with the platforms. He also asked for political parties to be treated as critical national infrastructure, but we think they should be regulated differently. For instance, the National Cyber Security Centre offers political parties access to the best cyber-security guidance, and we will continue to strengthen that guidance. Political parties are different from CNI, and it is vital that we do not surrender our own values of liberal democracy in our response to this threat.
We welcome any ISC work in this area, including with the Electoral Commission, which has the resources and the powers to follow the money. Any international money that funds British political activity—political parties or regulated activity—is not appropriate. The question of whether the Electoral Commission can then go further and deeper is not relevant. The point is that if  the money is international, it is not right. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned imprints on online adverts, and I can confirm that the Electoral Commission is looking at that. He referred to RT, and a robust regulatory framework is in place for broadcasting, as has been discussed, and Ofcom has found RT to be in breach of the regulator’s broadcasting code on 13 separate occasions.
The right hon. Member for Exeter and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke passionately about their views on Russia. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) both made the point that the question is not about whether there have been Russian attempts at interference, but to what degree. I agree with them, however, that there is no evidence of successful interference.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has long experience in this battle for minds, and I strongly agree that it is crucial that online users are able critically to analyse and properly question sources of information and news, especially when they relate to political or polling activity. He is right that our best defence fundamentally is our critical faculty as a society, and long-term work to ensure that that is strong is important.
This has been a very informed debate. In recognition of the new threats posed by cyber, the National Cyber Security Centre, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who is the Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, has stepped up support for political parties and parliamentarians to encourage them to protect the data they hold. There is a distinction, however, between cyber-security—attacks to break down data-holding systems, which the NCSC is built to defend and GCHQ is involved in—and the open publication of misleading disinformation. Of course there is an overlap, but they are two separable issues. In government, it is for the NCSC to deal with cyber-attacks, but not to make judgments about disinformation, because it is a security agency. That is a matter for the Government to take a view on, not the NCSC.
The UK electoral system is one of the most robust in the world, and our manual counting system is difficult, if not downright impossible, to manipulate through direct cyber-attack, but cyber is just one of the issues. The Electoral Commission was mentioned many times. It has opened investigations into several aspects of campaign financing, including around the EU referendum, and although I cannot comment on these ongoing investigations, it is right that we consider whether the Electoral Commission is equipped with the right powers to carry out its critical function.
There have been suggestions for how the rules might be tightened up, including ideas from the commission itself, and we will continue to consider what the right  balance of tools and powers should be, with particular recognition of the increased role of social media and online platforms. This needs to be done in the context of fake news, as set out so clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight). We share the House’s concern about the rise of fake news, and we fully expect social media companies, including but not limited to Twitter, Facebook, Google and Microsoft, to comply in full with the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s request for information.
That brings us to one of the most important things that has come up in this debate. The Committee is due to examine top brass from Facebook, Google and Twitter at a hearing in February. These platforms recognise the problem, and we recognise the progress they have made, but there is far more for them to do on transparency and co-operation. This is a work in progress and there is much more to do. Frankly, we do not think that the Select Committee, on this issue, has been given the straight answers we would expect. So far the published information is entirely partial and wholly inadequate. It took the platforms a year to get up to speed with what to do in the US context, and this time they must do much better. We do not rule out taking further action if necessary. They need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. The Chair of the Select Committee is an extremely reasonable man, and his reasonable demands must be met in letter and spirit. We welcome the inquiry and look forward to studying its findings closely.
Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull said, the threats to our democracy are different from those in the past. They are vested no longer in tanks in the heart of Europe, but in the ether, in cyber-space, on the screens of our smartphones. We must have the confidence that the robust and free challenge of ideas is the best way to decide the future of our country, but political discourse must be based on objective reality, not malicious disinformation from abroad. Let us not fall into the trap of feeble relativism. Let us send the message clear and loud from this debate: true parliamentary democracy is better than autocracy, more free and more just. Once again, in a new generation, we are called to protect our freedom, justice and way of life. We must not fail.

Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his tough words about the social media companies, but we also need to ensure that the security services provide them with information they may have so that they can follow the leads already obtained by the intelligence services. I hope that the Minister will take it from this debate that the House demands that the UK Government prioritise defending our democracy from Russian interference.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Russian interference in UK politics and society.

CHRISTMAS ADJOURNMENT

Bob Blackman: I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Unfortunately, the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), had to return to his constituency earlier and has asked me to lead off in the debate.
I kick off by sending the sympathies of the whole House to the Chairman of Ways and Means and his family at this time of terrible tragedy. We hope that he has as peaceful a Christmas and new year as is possible under these dreadful circumstances.
I wish to begin with the matter of homelessness. I make no apologies for pointing out to the House that my Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, almost the last Act given Royal Assent before we broke up for the general election, is yet to enter fully and finally into law. It becomes law on 1 April 2018. The Government have just concluded a detailed consultation on a 180-page document on the advice given to local authorities on the implementation of the Act and how homeless people are to be treated in this country. The Select Committee on Communities and Local Government is making representations to that consultation, and I look forward in the new year to the Government coming forward with recommendations to amend the consultation document slightly to make it far more user friendly for the people who need help—the people who are homeless.
The Act was the longest private Member’s Bill in history and the most expensive. It is quite clear, therefore, that this will be a revolution in how homeless people are treated in this country. The secondary legislation required to bring the Act into full force will come before the House in February, I believe, so clearly there is still work to be done to get this in place as required.

Norman Lamb: I commend the hon. Gentleman’s amazing work on this important legislation. I was with an amazing group of people at the Shelter office in Birmingham yesterday and, in particular, spoke to peer workers, who had been through the experience of street homelessness and could provide incredible and important support. They raised the issue of how sanctions in the benefits system are applied to street homeless people, many of whom suffer from mental ill health and have addiction issues, and who, with the best will in the world, have no way to ensure they attend a benefits meeting a week or fortnight hence. They miss the meetings and then have no money for a month or longer. This, surely, is something we have to address in terms of the civilised treatment of these people.

Bob Blackman: Clearly, people who are street homeless—actually sleeping on the streets rough—have chaotic lives and do not work to the same sort of timetables as everyone else. It is clearly wrong in principle, therefore, that they be penalised when, through no fault of their own, they fail to attend such meetings and have their benefits taken away. We have to do far more. We know, above all else, that every single person who is homeless is a unique case and therefore should be treated as such and sympathetically.
This is the 50th anniversary of the founding of Crisis. One of my political heroes was the late Iain Macleod, who helped to fund and start Crisis. It started off as Crisis at Christmas, but has gone on to provide services throughout the year. All Members have an opportunity to make a difference. The Crisis Christmas single, a re-recording of “Streets of London” by Ralph McTell, commemorates its 50th anniversary. It features the Crisis choir and Annie Lennox as guest vocalist. All Members and members of staff can download the single, for 99p, and we can aim to make it the Christmas No. 1.
If I cannot convince Members to buy “Streets of London”, they could download Phil Ryan’s Christmas single. He has worked with Lord Bird, the founder of the “The Big Issue”, for 26 years, and has launched a self-penned single, “Walking Down this Lonely Street”. Homelessness and loneliness are two things that go hand in hand. It would be great for all Members to download and support those singles.

Siobhain McDonagh: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the great many churches that do a huge amount to provide night shelters at this time of year. My own church, Christ Church in Collier’s Wood, is part of a group of churches that provides a hostel from November through to January. As a person of faith, it is great to see that action, but it is also a desperate thing to be happening.

Bob Blackman: At this time of year we should commend all those volunteers who give up their time at Christmas, and throughout the year, to help homeless people. FirmFoundation does a brilliant job in my constituency, and I am sure every constituency has such groups of people who come together to help people, and particularly the street homeless.
We had two successes in the Budget that we should celebrate. The help to rent proposals will help upwards of 20,000 families to get together a deposit for a rental property, and the funding of three Housing First pilots is a good start, although we need to see it rolled out right across the country.
Equally, in the Budget we had a huge win on the staircase tax, which was going to affect 90,000 businesses across the UK, following the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Valuation Office Agency to levy rates individually on offices that are on separate floors or corridors. One campaigner in my constituency came to see me about it. I lobbied the Chancellor—I am pleased that many Members on both sides of the House did so, too—and he listened to what we had to say.
There is some unfinished business that needs to be concluded in Parliament. First, the Government conducted a long-awaited consultation on removing caste as a protected characteristic in equality law. There were thousands of responses from the British Hindu community, and we now await the Government introducing legislation to remove this ill thought out, divisive and unnecessary legislation from our statute book.
Equally, we have the plight of Equitable Life policy- holders. I am the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on justice for Equitable Life policyholders. An outstanding debt of £2.6 billion is still owed to those people who invested their money after listening to advice and were victims of a terrible scam.
We recently had the 99th anniversary of the great union of Romania, with Romanians gathering to celebrate the joining of Transylvania to Romania. As the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Romania, I had the privilege of attending the national celebration at the embassy, and I wished some 10,000 of my constituents a happy national day.
This time of year would not be complete without raising some local issues. There is what I can only describe as the north face of the Eiger at Stanmore station. As one arrives at the terminal after travelling on the Jubilee line, one is met by 49 steps to reach street level. There is no lift—the lift was taken out of the plan by a previous Mayor of London—but the Department for Transport has held a consultation. Hundreds of my constituents have campaigned for lifts at Stanmore and Canons Park stations, and I look forward to the Department coming forward with the necessary funding to make that happen.
We have also had the scandal of the Hive sports ground, which Harrow Council sold to Barnet football club for a relatively small sum of money. I led an Adjournment debate on the subject. Barnet football club, having acquired the whole land, has now submitted planning applications to overdevelop the site in a way which residents are objecting to in huge numbers. I trust we will see those planning applications duly rejected, as they should be.
People often think of rural areas as having problems with broadband, but I suggest they come to Stanmore in my constituency, where the various providers refuse, point blank, to provide high-speed broadband to residents, even though many of them desperately need it. We look forward to the providers being forced to provide high-speed broadband in the way they should.
I have continued to work to encourage the opening and development of free schools in my constituency. The proposed Mariposa and Hujjat free schools are both strongly supported by local residents but objected to by Harrow Council. I trust that those objections will be removed so that we can see first-rate schools being set up for the constituents I have the honour of representing.
There are three other important local issues. I attended the opening of the DiscoG coding academy, a new facility in Belmont in my constituency that supports young people to learn to write code. They learn how to write computer code from the age of five, which is an excellent way of ensuring that our young people are getting the type of education they need to complement what they learn in school.
At this time of year, although we are celebrating Christmas, it is of course the festival of Hanukkah, too. I had the honour last week of attending the lighting of the menorah at Stanmore Broadway, as we brought together members of the public from all faiths and none to ensure we all recognise the multiculturalism of London, and particularly of Harrow.
Harrow Mencap is doing brilliant work, and it has now formulated a function that can only be called “connecting communities.” I said earlier that we should concentrate not on people’s handicaps but on the things they can do, and Harrow Mencap is a prime example of that. Although the organisation works with people who  have profound disabilities, it gets the best out of them and ensures they have the opportunity to live a full and active life, getting a job where appropriate. Harrow Mencap brings people together from across the communities, many of whom are very isolated indeed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, Mr Speaker, your fellow Deputy Speakers and the whole House—all Members and all members of staff—a happy Christmas and a restful break. We look forward to 2018 being a happy, peaceful, prosperous and, above all else, healthy new year.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: On behalf of the whole House, I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his kind words. It is a great pleasure to wish everybody a happy and peaceful Christmas.
I am afraid that my first consideration has had to be to put a time limit on speeches because, as the House knows, we are quite limited this afternoon. We begin with a time limit of seven minutes.

John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow the wide-ranging speech of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). He mentioned the Christmas No. 1, among other things, and I just want to mention three things that all have a Christmas link.
The first is the near-complete absence of trains on Boxing day in the United Kingdom outside Scotland. This situation does not exist in the rest of Europe, where a comprehensive train service is provided throughout the Christmas holiday period. In the UK, outside Scotland, if anything, the situation is worse this year than in previous years.
The great airports of Heathrow and Gatwick are served by buses this year, rather than trains, although Stansted does have some trains. The only other line in England that has a train service is Marylebone to Oxford on the Chiltern service, aside from in the enlightened area of Merseyside, where Merseyrail for the past three years has run a service—not to all stations but to selected stations. Each year that is going from strength to strength. For example, this year, Liverpool football club are at home at Anfield in the early evening on Boxing day, and a service will run well into the evening to allow fans of Liverpool football club not only to get to the game, but to get home. They are almost unique among English football fans in being able to do that.
The House of Commons Library tells me that it was not always like this in Christmases past. Until 1975, a Sunday service was provided on most of the rail network, but that was gradually run down until it all but disappeared in 1980. Members may well ask why this is a particular problem. It is because it means that some people cannot go home for Christmas; people who have to be at work first thing on 27 December would have to travel back on 26 December and they just cannot do that.
I have already mentioned sporting events. On Boxing day, I will be at my beloved Valley Parade watching Bradford City take on Peterborough, but in my charity bet in my constituency I have gone for an accumulator of Bradford City, Leeds and Burnley all winning that  day, in order to cover all my bases in the constituency. As well as the sport, the sales are taking place, as are all sorts of events—at theatres and so on. We also often talk in this House about loneliness, so we can see that closing down this network for nearly 60 hours is just too long—that is to leave aside what this does for the environment.
There is, however, some hope in the north of England. In its rail franchise, Northern will have to provide 60 services on Boxing day 2018.We hope that those will be the first trains in Yorkshire on this day—I suggest they be on the Airedale and Wharfedale line—since 1980. TransPennine Express is also obliged to make suggestions to the Government on Boxing day services, which it has done. I hope that the Government will discuss funding those with TransPennine Express, and that with the necessary funding in place Manchester airport will be served for the first time ever on Boxing day. That is its busiest day of the year and there should be trains running. If it is good enough for Stansted, it is certainly good enough for Manchester.
We need to stop the blame game between the two Front-Bench teams on this issue. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they drew attention to it, and now my beloved Labour party draws attention to it around 26 December each year. Whether the railways are in public or private hands, the House must unite in insisting that a basic service is provided on Boxing day.
Let me quickly move on to discuss food. I am looking forward to my Christmas dinner, but can we trust the food on the table? We have seen a report by The Guardian and ITN about chicken processing plants, particularly those of the 2 Sisters Food Group, which initially came out in September. It suggested that standards were well below what we should expect at the group’s West Bromwich plant. There was chicken on the floor and production was suspended. But the situation has got even worse in recent days, with ITN and The Guardian having now revealed that Tesco gave a red warning to 2 Sisters Food Group about another of its 12 plants, the one at Coupar Angus, in Scotland, at about the same time—this was in September or October. In that case, the labelling was almost non-existent in some cases. Some chicken had been condemned as unfit for human consumption; it was not clear what had happened to it. It is extremely worrying that Tesco knew this, yet its chief executive, David Lewis, no less, did a press conference in October and, when he was asked whether he had any knowledge that the problems extended beyond the West Bromwich plant, he said that Tesco
“didn’t find anything that would indicate that what was seen in West Bromwich was present in any of the other factory sites”.
Yet Tesco had just given a red warning to the Coupar Angus plant. Mr Lewis has some explaining to do. Why did Tesco not provide this information to the public or to the Food Standards Agency? All supermarkets should definitely do that in future. There should be CCTV in all cutting plants, as there is in abattoirs, so that at Christmas time and throughout the year we can trust the food on our table.
We have already heard a couple of references to the importance of churches at Christmas. In Yorkshire, we are particularly proud that the live midnight mass on BBC 1 this year comes from the Catholic cathedral in Leeds, which has a magnificent choir. In recent years, Members from different parties have occasionally been  critical of the BBC’s commitment to religious broadcasting. In the past few days, the BBC has responded with a rather good report. I commend it to the House. I think it is recognised that the BBC alone of the public service broadcasters now has a responsibility to bring religious broadcasting to the country. Among other things, the BBC has committed to having a religious affairs editor backed by a religious team. I commend that report to the House.
All that remains is for me to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House a merry Christmas and, having mentioned my football bet, to reveal that I placed my accompanying charity bet at Ladbrokes in Keighley on Thistlecrack in the King George VI chase, the big horse race on Boxing day and another part of sporting Christmas.

Paul Beresford: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) on anything except, of course, wishing everyone a merry Christmas. The trouble is that his sporting interest has a round ball, whereas I prefer the one that is slightly tweaked at the ends, and most of the teams I support wear black only.
I wish to raise just one issue, which is, unfashionably, a men’s issue. It is well known to the House—and to The Sunday Telegraph—that I am a very part-time dentist. I am also chair of the all-party group on dentistry and oral health. As one can anticipate, the profession pushes me on various causes. This is one that I wish to raise: I would like the Government to extend the human papillomavirus vaccination to boys as well as girls. I raise this issue because it might be timely, as I understand that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is about to report on this issue to the Secretary of State for Health.
There are a number of HPV viruses, two of which are very nasty. Girls are vaccinated against the virus to stop cervical cancer. HPV viruses also cause penial cancer and genital warts. Slowly but surely, because of the vaccination programme for girls, there will be a reasonable herd immunity. I say reasonable because the vaccination reaches far from 100% of girls; many start the course but do not complete it, while many others do not even start it.
My specific interest is in the fact that these nasty viruses cause between 35% and 70% of head and neck cancers, depending on the anatomical site. For example, 70% of oropharyngeal cancers are caused by HPV. Treatment of head and neck cancers is often debilitating, disfiguring and destructive of the patients and their self-esteem. Frequently, radiology and/or surgery is required, involving the face, the jaw and teeth, the neck, the tongue, the pharynx, the larynx, the oesophagus or combinations of them. Physical disfigurement is common, and speech and eating can be significantly impaired.
In the global ranking of cancer deaths, head and neck cancers rank fifth. Furthermore, the prevalence of head and neck cancer is markedly higher in males than it is in females, with a ratio of 2:1. It is a men’s problem. In the UK, the frequency of head and neck cancer is increasing at one of the fastest rates of all cancers. The cost of treatment to the NHS is astronomical.
Vaccination programmes can eliminate, or virtually eliminate, certain diseases by producing herd immunity—the polio campaign is an example. The HPV vaccination programme for adolescent girls in the United Kingdom has had considerable success, but it is not producing full herd immunity.
We recently had a Westminster Hall debate on HPV vaccination for men who have sex with men. With HPV vaccination, I do not think that who is having sex with whom is relevant. I contend that heterosexual men—there is still a proportion of us left in this community—are very vulnerable. The estimate is that 10% of young UK girls do not get the full vaccination cover. Research suggests that 20% of 16 to 24-year-old men have had  10 or more sexual partners. Statistically, one of those partners has not been vaccinated.
Vaccination programmes for girls and boys would stand a reasonable chance of producing effective herd immunity. I understand that the cost would be another £22 million a year, but set that against the £58 million for treating genital warts and way over £300 million for head and neck cancer. What is important is not who is having sex with whom, but the need for that herd immunity. If Australia, Austria, Canada, Israel, Switzerland, the United States and even New Zealand can manage this, then we can, too. To put it simply, it is not fair, ethical, or socially responsible to have a public health policy that leaves 50% of the population vulnerable to HPV and head and neck cancer.

Jamie Stone: I will be brief. I believe that one of the best uses of time in the future in this Parliament would be a thoughtful consideration of how the devolved Administrations and the UK Parliament can work best together to benefit constituents, particularly constituents in my vast and far-flung part of Scotland.
I shall touch on three subjects this afternoon. I apologise to Members because they have heard me mention them before, but I do feel duty bound to bring them up. The first is broadband. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) was quite correct to raise the issues in his own constituency, but, clearly, when someone is dealing with distances as vast as mine, the matter presents particular challenges. In the past, not so very long ago, we saw a bit of backwards and forwards between hon. Members on both sides of this Chamber about whose fault this is. I do not want to get into that, but it does seem to me that, if one could have a get together, a meeting of minds between both levels of government, perhaps we could work together to tackle the issue.
As everyone in this Chamber knows, I am a remainer. Whatever form Brexit Britain takes, we will absolutely need connectivity in the future if we are to compete in a world market. I hope that we can all accept that. Equally, I have mentioned universal credit many times in this Chamber, but the problem that universal credit presents to my constituents is that many of them cannot go online to access it. That is enough said on broadband.
In the north of my constituency is the former nuclear power station, Dounreay, which is being decommissioned. We have a skills base there which is second to none. The challenge for me and for everyone who cares about  employment in the far north of Scotland is to see how to utilise those skills in the future in that area. At the Scottish Government level, we have the Highlands and Islands Enterprise trying to encourage development, but we also have the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which is very much a function of Westminster. The more joined up—I know that it is a clichéd phrase—that we can be, the more I can say to the working people of Caithness that we are doing our very best to look to their future to see what we can do.
The temptation for me here in this Chamber is to go down the health route. I am sure that Members of the Scottish National party would yawn if I did that, but I will not do so because I have already covered the subject in some detail. However, what I do want to mention is energy and the production of energy. Today, I have received a letter from a constituent, Mr Murray Threipland, who owns and runs a business in Caithness, Dunbeath Engineering. He has recently got planning permission to build a turbine, which will cost him just short of half a million pounds. That is great; he has got the go-ahead. However, due to problems with the local electricity grid, he cannot export the surplus energy that he is going to make. He is faced with buying a large number of electric heaters and, at night time when he does not need the surplus energy, heating up the night air of Caithness. A nice idea, people may think—it might help get rid of the midges or keep the odd poacher warm, but it does not achieve much else.
We need energy in this country. We need to make as much energy as we can and to do it as efficiently as we can. Again, a joined-up view of government both north and south of the border would be hugely helpful. I take the view—perhaps in slight contradiction to other colleagues here—that the UK is here to stay. Things such as broadband and energy do not respect national boundaries; they are for the good of the UK. The same goes for how we decommission nuclear sites, how we use the skills and how we approach the future.
That is really all I have to say, except, like others, I should like to thank people for all that has been done in this place. I am no longer a new Member—I have been here for six months—and want to say something that is personal to me. I have been touched by the kindness, support and advice that I have received from all parts and all parties of this Chamber. How this place works strikes me as being very, very special, and I am deeply grateful for it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish the merriest Christmas to Mr Speaker, you and all the other Deputy Speakers, every Member in this House and in the other place as well—not that I frequent it very often—and everyone who works here? Thank you.

Bob Stewart: Happy Christmas everyone, especially to my friend the hon. and brave Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who sometimes speaks in such debates on the subject of hysteroscopy procedures, which far too many women have had to undergo without pain relief. I wish to put on record my full support for her campaign to sort that out.
Personally, I would like today to raise the matter of central Government funding on behalf of my constituency, Beckenham. We live in the London Borough of Bromley, which is represented in this place by three Tories and  one Labour MP. In 2017-18, Bromley had the fifth smallest settlement funding of the 32 London boroughs, but it has the seventh highest population. Actually, Bromley is the largest London borough by geographical size. It also has one of the highest proportions of older people and, most certainly, the most extensive road network. Yet the associated cost implications of these factors are not reflected in our settlement funding, which is the second lowest per head in London, despite which Bromley has dealt with its finances extremely efficiently. Our council tax remains relatively low considering the local services provided and our low central Government funding settlement. But it has not been easy.
Bromley Council has been hugely innovative in tackling its tasks: it has created as low a cost base as possible, pioneering many measures to balance cost, value and outcomes; it has outsourced whenever that makes sense and, within reason, where it gets most efficiency at a low cost; and it has created leisure trusts that work. It does all this by maintaining relentless cost control measures on all its activities. However, most of the cost-saving measures that many other boroughs have yet to take have already been implemented in Bromley. The obvious implication is that there is little scope to achieve many more savings. Our flexibility on further cuts is hugely constrained without reducing our statutory requirements.
Bromley’s core finding has been cut more than the London and England average continuously since 2010. This will have been reduced by 75% in real terms over the decade. By 2020, Bromley’s central Government funding will have been reduced in real terms to a quarter of what it was in 2010, although I accept that it has new methods of raising money. Bromley has managed to generate savings of £90 million since 2010, but, as is obvious, the mid and low-hanging fruit cuts have now been taken. Bromley Council, with reluctance, has no choice but to put its statutory requirements in the firing line.
By 2030, Bromley’s population is expected to increase by considerably more than the national average, but future funding is unfortunately not currently assessed on population growth. Using Greater London Authority central estimates, the population of over-65s in Bromley is expected to increase by about 44% between 2017 and 2037, and the population of over-90s is expected to increase by 123%, with an overall population increase in Bromley of 18% during that period. Surely, that must be considered when looking at central Government funding.
It is now widely recognised that, in all areas of England, there is an urgent need for a fairer system of central Government funding. It seems that decisions on this issue may be delayed until 2020 or 2021. In the meantime, Bromley could be punished for being an ultra-efficient council. That is not only unfair but wrong.
For their part, councillors in Bromley feel that our efforts at keeping costs down and making efficiencies are largely unrecognised by the Government. The efficient running of local government should be encouraged, not penalised, so I ask the Government to reconsider the situation in Bromley, recognise what has been achieved and ensure that the borough is properly supported in the interim with another transitional grant of the kind the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has previously provided to help us out.
I repeat: happy Christmas to everyone—in this Chamber and throughout the land.

Rupa Huq: As is customary, I wish everyone in the House a happy Christmas.
I want to raise an unseasonal tale of big infrastructure and small business, which affects the Park Royal chunk of my constituency. Park Royal was once Europe’s largest industrial estate. They built things such as planes for both world wars and munitions; the Heinz factory was there, and Guinness emanated from Park Royal, but now Park Royal finds itself on the receiving end of the heavy-handed High Speed 2—that is the big infrastructure. In Ealing Central and Acton, we are blessed: we have a lot of these big infrastructure projects. The planes going to Heathrow fly over us—we are on the flight path. Crossrail is coming to link east and west to our part of the world, and there is also HS2.
However, in this season of good will and good faith—I voted in good faith for the HS2 project, and I like the idea of high-speed rail, connectivity and all those things—a bunch of small businesses in the Park Royal industrial estate feel that they have been shafted. Sorry, that is perhaps unparliamentary language; these businesses have been ill treated by HS2—at this time of year—and they wanted me to raise their plight.
I am doing that in this forum because, talking of good will, Robert Goodwill—sorry, I cannot remember his constituency.

Scarborough.

Rupa Huq: That’s it. He’s a good Yorkshireman, isn’t he?
I remember raising HS2 issues with the hon. Gentleman in the House, and it worked for a time, so I want to see whether it will work again. In 2016, when he was the Minister for rail—he is now the children’s Minister—he came to Park Royal. I asked him to see for himself what was going on.
Park Royal used to be a place of big businesses; now, the businesses are much smaller. We have Mediterranean food manufacturers, prop hire, laundries and all sorts of small family businesses, so families, livelihoods and that sort of thing depend on the area. Park Royal has been named in The Independent as a sort of mini-Beirut, which sounds quite scary, but a lot of middle eastern food manufacturers come from the area. If Members have Baklava in a west end restaurant, it is likely to have been made in my constituency.
A number of these small companies were initially told that when the HS2 project happened, they would be given six months to relocate. There was no assurance about when that would happen, and these companies are having compulsory purchase orders put on them. So the Minister came with me, and we saw that assurances were received that people would have a relocation grant and be given good time in which to get their businesses up and running again. One of the companies is a prop hire business—probably no one in this House has ever been to one of those. It covers acres and acres, and has vintage telephones, whalebone corsets, ’70s cereal packets and all sorts of things, and it is not easy to relocate those things. Superhire props is the business I am thinking of.
The Minister said there would be a £250,000 disturbance payment, which is a strange phrase describing what happens when someone is forcibly moved elsewhere.  However, these payments have not been forthcoming. The thing is that HS2 is very clever: it can operate within the letter of the law, and we are talking about assurances, not legally binding guarantees.
Three hundred employees and their families have written to me. They are facing Christmas with a very uncertain future, because they are about to be CPO’d on 10 January. Some of them have two premises now, so they are paying for two lots of rent, leases and staff. One of them was on BBC London recently. The workers have downed tools and gone because they are not being paid since the advance payment from HS2 has not been forthcoming. When the ghost of Christmas past—the Minister—came to visit and saw what was happening, he gave those promises in good faith, I believe.
Something has gone wrong with HS2. It seems to be haemorrhaging CEOs, and the project has run over time and over budget. Hon. Friends whose constituencies are further into London—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq)—opposed it. I did not, but I am losing patience with HS2.
There is also what HS2 does to residents. Three roads in my constituency—Shaftesbury Gardens, Midland Terrace and Wells House Road—face 10 years of works 24/7. Imagine a child born now getting to its 10th birthday and only knowing living on a building site! The only assurance that these residents have been given is for secondary glazing on one side of one of those roads. That is just not good enough.
When I raised this with the Secretary of State for Transport, he said, “My door is always open.” I have written letters and submitted written questions, but I feel a bit like I am banging my head against a brick wall. When we had the initial chink of light after I raised this with the Minister, I saw that it worked to raise these matters in this House, so that is why I am trying again.
It seems as though people are negotiating a Kafkaesque web of bureaucracy in order to get these payments. For a big business with a turnover in the millions, £250,000 is a drop in the ocean. The relocation costs will be much more than that. They feel that the number of hoops they have had to jump through is insupportable.
Old Oak, which Park Royal feeds into, has been identified by the Mayor of London as a super-development opportunity area. There will be 26,000 new dwellings and two tube stations, as well as Crossrail and HS2. There is a lot of promise there. The marketing spiel says that it will be an incubator for new business, but the old businesses that have been built up over years—family businesses—are facing a very bleak Christmas this year.
HS2’s mission statement says that it will give
“sufficient liquidity…to be able to make satisfactory arrangements for relocation”.
That is not the approach that is being taken. This is undermining public confidence in the project. I have been voting for it and trying to defend it, but my local residents and businesses have had enough of HS2.
It is very disappointing that this has come at this time of year. As I say, assurances are only assurances—they are not legally enforceable. They are not worth the paper they are written on, quite frankly. As for Christmas  future, I hope that in the new year, which is only next week, we will have better news for the businesses and residents who feel that they have been done over by HS2.

David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, there are a number of points that I wish to raise.
A constituent of mine, a former model, Carla Cressy, suffers from endometriosis. The condition was diagnosed in January 2016. She is doing everything she can to launch a campaign to make 14 to 18-year-old girls aware of this disease. I am going to do everything I possibly can to help her to raise awareness.
We have debated the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign and the WASPI women time after time in this House. I am still getting many letters from constituents who claim that they were not made aware of the changes. I know that this will be a difficult one for the Government, but I really do think that we will have to look at this situation again.
In November, I met the Institute of Fundraising. We have many wonderful charities in Southend West, and they brought to my attention the potential difficulties posed to them by the Data Protection Bill and the General Data Protection Regulation. This is good law, but it creates a number of difficulties for charities.
In the new year, my party will launch Diversity2Win. I am very honoured to be a patron—together with Baroness Jenkin, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), and the Prime Minister—of this initiative to make our party even more diverse than it is at the moment.
In October, I was very privileged to be present at the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service, which was received by two magnificent local charities that help people with mental health issues and those in other very difficult situations. I pay tribute to Crossing Boundaries and Growing Together. The voluntary sector thrives in all our constituencies, but particularly in Southend. Southend Association of Voluntary Services is delivering a National Lottery-funded project called Volunteering-on-Sea. It is an exhibition curated by people aged between 10 and 20, and it helps those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Of course, we again had our centenarians’ tea party. It was an absolute privilege to welcome the wonderful gentlemen and ladies who celebrated reaching the age of 100 or more. The Hive enterprise centre is a wonderful project in the centre of the constituency, and it offers state-of-the-art business opportunities.
I raised phone scams recently in the House. I am sick to death of getting calls from people telling me that I have been involved in an accident, and all that nonsense. It really has to be dealt with by the Government.
In 2000, I was very successful in getting on to the statute book a fuel poverty Act. The matter has to be looked at again, so next year I will introduce a new Bill, which I hope will get the House’s support. That aims to bring fuel-poor homes up to Energy Performance Certificate band C by 2030, and to ensure that all homes meet that standard by 2035.
I see that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) is present, and I congratulate Hull on being the city of culture this year. Southend-on-Sea was the alternative city of culture, and it has been an absolutely triumphant year for the town that I am honoured to represent. Our wonderful charity, the Music Man Project, performed at the London Palladium, and in 2019 it will perform at the Royal Albert Hall.
The marvellous British Legion, which celebrates its 80th anniversary, organised a wonderful collection of ceramic poppies that was displayed along the cliffs of Southend. It has been a wonderful year, and the best Christmas present that Southend residents could receive would be for us to be declared a city. I am in discussions with the Minister for the constitution, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), about organising a contest, if there has to be a contest, for city status next year. I think we could have it around the occasion of the royal wedding.
I am very close to the organisation that wants people in Iran to enjoy democracy; that is not the case at the moment. I have lobbied the United Nations and the Nobel peace prize committee, and I also addressed a conference on the issue earlier in this Parliament.
The Southend citizens advice bureau has recently brought to my attention further issues regarding universal credit. These include difficulty in submitting online applications, inaccurate calculations and delays in both the claiming process and payments to constituents.
It has to be explained why petrol prices are going up as quickly as they are at the moment. Something is wrong there.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you were chairing proceedings when we had a debate on stroke. Mechanical thrombectomy is a treatment that I hope will be rolled out throughout the UK. On diabetes, a constituent told me that there is not enough provision in schools to help children who have diabetes.
The University of Essex, which has a campus in Southend, received its highest ever ranking in The Times university guide. Anglia Ruskin University has a wonderful medical centre, which is being developed.
This year, I was privileged to enjoy the very successful event held by Essex Boys and Girls Clubs in Hadleigh Park. I absolutely support the efforts of Project 49, an award-wining service in Southend for adults with learning disabilities. I also support the efforts of those involved in the active ageing community event organised by Southend Older People’s Assembly earlier this year.
This has been a difficult and challenging year for parliamentarians in all sorts of ways, and there has been much sadness. I hope that everyone will focus on something good and positive that has happened in their life. We thank all the staff of this place, who support us. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers, a very happy Christmas and a wonderful and joyous new year.

Lyn Brown: As the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said, I often use this debate to talk about women’s health matters in a way that can make grown men wince. I have to say that he and other hon. Members on both sides of the House have been very generous in their support for the hysteroscopy campaign. I am very happy to report that, following a  meeting this week with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price)—it was a very good meeting—I really hope some progress can be made. I thank him and others for their support.

Bob Stewart: Is the progress that the hon. Lady mentions pain-free for ladies who have to undergo this treatment?

Lyn Brown: The woman Health Minister I met has read the women’s testimonies I presented to her, and she was horrified by them, as the House has been when I have read them out on previous occasions. She and I are very clear that this is about choice—informed choice—and about making sure that women get what they need, rather than what is cheapest. I do not want to put words in her mouth, but I think we are both on the same page, and it was a very happy meeting. I therefore have only three, not four, issues that I want to raise today.
First, NewVIc—Newham Sixth Form College—is a great further education institution that regularly sends more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to university, including to Russell Group universities and Oxbridge, than any other sixth-form college in England. Newham is a massively deprived area, and research tells us that 13 out of 20 children in Newham live in poverty, and that it is currently second worst of all local authorities in England for social mobility. The fact that our young people are doing massively well at our FE institution is therefore testimony to them, their teachers and their parents. However, NewVIc’s budget has been cut by £770 per student, and that includes £200 per student from the deprivation allocation. How on earth can that be justified?
I would be very grateful to the Minister if he liaised with the Department for Education on my behalf to secure a meeting about this with NewVIc and me so that we can help NewVIc to continue to be a much-needed engine of social mobility in my community and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).

Michael Ellis: indicated assent.

Lyn Brown: I have had a nod.
My second issue concerns a mental health condition called depersonalisation disorder. At least one of my constituents is a sufferer, and she has asked me to share her story with the House. Since she was 18, my constituent has lived for years in a continuous state of detachment. The world and her own life do not feel real. She lives in a dream, performing actions on autopilot, and she sometimes does not even recognise herself in the mirror. It is terrifying.
The disorder is under-researched and very poorly understood, and it can take eight to 12 years to get the right diagnosis. The consequences of a misdiagnosis can be dreadful, because anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety or antidepressant medications do not help and can make the condition markedly worse. As one sufferer, Sarah, has explained:
“Relationships…lose their essential quality… You know you love your family, but you know it academically—rather than feeling it in the normal way.”
I would genuinely find it very difficult hard to live if I had this disorder; I know I could not do so.
With swift diagnosis and specialist treatment, patients can have a real hope of remission, but existing NHS provision is woefully inadequate. There is only one specialist unit, based at the Maudsley Hospital, and many patients wait years for funding to attend it, while others are refused funding. The service is anyway only for adults, even though the condition typically begins in a person’s early teens. May I ask the Minister for a meeting with the Department of Health to discuss this further? Again, I would be very grateful to him if he helped that request on its way.
Finally, I wish to mention fixed odds betting terminals. As we have established in this debate, without any contradiction, Newham is a borough with high levels of deprivation, yet it also has one of the highest numbers of betting shops in any borough, with 81 in operation, and 12 on one street alone. Newham Council estimates that £20 million of residents’ money was lost to fixed odds betting terminal in just one year. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) have called for a reduction of the maximum stake to £2, and I welcome the Government’s consultation on that issue, which rightly suggests that a £2 limit will help to stop problem gambling. Such a limit would be a great, if belated, Christmas present to the children of Newham.
In conclusion, I thank the staff of the House for their unfailing kindness, professionalism, and service to us all. I know I will not be the only person in the Chamber today who is thinking of our Deputy Speaker and sending him our love and prayers. I am also thinking of the family of Jo Cox, Brendan and the children, and about the family of our own PC Keith Palmer, as they face their first Christmas without him. We all know that that will be massively hard.
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members, the happiest of Christmases, and the very best of new years.

Eleanor Laing: Following what the hon. Lady has just said, the Chairman of Ways and Means is very grateful for all the messages that he has received. Hundreds of Members have sent him very kind messages, and he has found that a great support at this sad and tragic time. I will pass on to him, once again, the good wishes of the whole House.

Nigel Huddleston: May I associate myself with your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, and those of the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)?
What a fantastic opportunity and innovation these debates are—seven minutes to talk about pretty much anything we would like. I am surprised that the Benches are not overflowing with colleagues, but that leaves more time for the rest of us, so I am pleased. I wish to say two or three things by way of a thank you, then express a concern, and hopefully end on a positive point.

Lyn Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, but it is sad that not many people are here today. The information we had was that this debate was massively over-subscribed. I would like to go back to the old tradition where we had a proper Adjournment debate in which we could properly explore the issues that are  important to our constituents, without having to contain that within a four, six or seven-minute speech. I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to say that.

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Lady makes a valid point that I am sure others were listening to.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I heard the representation from the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)—she is also an hon. Friend. The Backbench Business Committee allocates the time and there were supposed to be three hours for this debate, but unfortunately because of statements our time was compressed. However, I will take that as a representation from the House, so that when the Committee considers the next recess Adjournment debate we can look for a full day’s debate.

Nigel Huddleston: I am happy to have facilitated that discussion.
I wish to thank you, Mr Speaker, and your entire team, and indeed everyone who looks after us—and I do mean looks after us—in this place. From security, the cleaners, and those in hospitality, everybody does a very good job and they do not always receive the praise that they deserve. I also wish to thank my family who go through quite an ordeal living with me, particularly given the lifestyle that we all lead, and I thank my constituents for re-electing me this year, for which I am grateful. I am sure I speak on behalf of all hon. Members when I say that although we are grateful to those who voted for us, we also represent those who did not. All Members across the House take that very seriously, and we do our best to represent the breadth of opinion, although that is sometimes overlooked.
I would like to say a special thank you to three people who have inspired me this year. I am very proud to have got to know them very well. Tracey Hemming runs the Freedom Day Centre and the Freedom Disco in my home village of Badsey. What an inspiration she is. She had an idea about 18 months ago to set up an event for disabled children and those with mental health challenges, and she has done the most fantastic job. I have managed to visit her several times. She is an amazing lady and deserves credit. Diane Bennett runs Caring Hands in the Vale, in Evesham, and runs the local food bank. She is an inspirational lady who I have got to know very well. Up in Droitwich, in the northern part of my constituency, a fantastic gentleman called Patrick Davis is doing a great job of reinvigorating salt production in Droitwich. I am very honoured to live in an area where volunteering and community engagement and involvement is at the heart of people’s day-to-day activities. They are very busy with their jobs and families, but the volunteering is incredible. I have never known anywhere—I have lived and worked abroad for many years—with that degree of dedication. It is an honour to be associated with so many of them.
The issue I would like to raise is something we are not seeing in the Chamber today: intolerance. I am increasingly concerned about the intolerance, abuse and intimidation happening at the extreme ends of both the far right and the far left of British politics. It is not representative or reflective of the day-to-day activity in this place, where we generally get along. We have a lot of banter. We disagree, sometimes vehemently, but I think we all know  that having strongly held opinions does not necessarily mean that we are right. We have the self-awareness to realise that we can sometimes be persuaded and that the opposition can be right. We know it is perfectly valid and fair to look at the same data points and have different views and opinions on policies that may come out of them. We have those debates in this place all the time.
Unfortunately, the public do not always see that. At the moment, particularly online, we are seeing an era of really disheartening abuse, vitriol and hatred that does not exist in this place. It is, however, the responsibility of us in this place to say loudly and clearly that that is not acceptable in British politics. If it is associated with any of us in any way shape or form, if somebody uses our name, hashtag or Twitter account to make really vile comments, we must stand up and say, “No, not in my name. I distance myself from those comments. I do not want to be associated with them.” We must be active. Yes the social media companies have a lot to answer for and, yes, do we as Members of Parliament, as do those making the vile comments in the first place, but we must stand up and be counted.

Jamie Stone: The hon. Gentleman should not lose hope. He is right and I absolutely endorse what he says. What we have seen in recent days and weeks has been extremely unpleasant, but three years ago north of the border—I think we can agree on this—it was very bad on both sides of the Scottish independence referendum debate. Since then, however, things have improved and we have worked at it. Progress can be made.

Nigel Huddleston: I do indeed have hope, but we have a responsibility to try to lead. It is very unfortunate, but I think we all get people insinuating about our motivations when we disagree on policy. Very occasionally in this place, it is very disheartening, as well as being downright rude, to hear people insinuate that because I am a Tory I must therefore wake up in the morning wanting to hurt poor and disabled people. That is so far from the reality that it is downright offensive and wrong. If anybody believes that, I feel really sorry for them. What kind of mentality must one have to believe the absolute worst of the people one deals with on a day-to-day basis in one’s workplace? That needs to be called out, too. My main concern is not what happens in this place, but what happens online. We really need to work closely to focus on that and I know there is a cross-party consensus.
I said I would end positively. I am very pleased and proud that I am a Member of Parliament for the Conservative party. We do not get everything right, but we listen and we make changes where necessary. I am proud that, for example, we recognised that mistakes had been made with universal credit. We looked at the data, we listened to people—to our constituents, and to other Members of Parliament—and we amended policy. I think that that was right, and I am glad that we did it.
However, we have also got many things right in the first place. I am glad that, as we go into the Christmas period, we are seeing the highest spending ever on the NHS, and more operations than ever are being carried out in the NHS. We are also seeing the highest spending ever on pensions and pensioners, more children in good or outstanding schools than ever before in the nation’s history, and more people than ever before going home  with a pay cheque every week and with the decency and honour that comes with earning money. Moreover, unemployment is at a record 45-year low. This has been a difficult and challenging year, but it is not all bad. Let us look at some of the positive developments.
I will play my part in continued cross-party co-operation on all the issues that we care about and our constituents care about, and I look forward to doing that over the next year. In the meantime, I wish a happy Christmas and a happy new year to everyone.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: The House will now be treated to a second dose of Gapes.

Mike Gapes: Thank you, Mr Speaker. A merry Christmas to you, to all the Deputy Speakers, to your panel of Chairs and to all the staff of the House. May I also send special best wishes to my friend the Chairman of Ways and Means? I know how hard it is for him at this time.
I am going to concentrate on one issue, and in doing so, I wish a merry Christmas to all the British people living in this country and the 5 million British people who are living in other countries, including 1.2 million in the European Union, because in the last few years we have not given the views and representativeness of those people the weight that they deserve.
In September 2014, the then chairman of the Conservative party pledged to end the 15-year rule applying to the eligibility of British people living overseas to vote in our elections. That commitment was made very firmly. He said:
“Being a British citizen is for life. It gives you the lifelong right to be protected by our military and Foreign Office, and to travel on a British passport. We believe it should also give you the lifelong right to vote.”
The manifesto on which David Cameron and the Conservative party won the 2015 election included that pledge. Subsequently, the Government issued a consultative document, and a commitment to introduce a “votes for life” Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech on 27 May 2015. The Bill did not materialise, but in October 2016 a policy statement was published, setting out how the removal of the 15-year rule would come about. British citizens who had lived in Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Portugal, Estonia, Lithuania or elsewhere in the European Union for more than 15 years were not eligible to vote in the EU referendum. As a result, although their rights had been more affected than those of any other British citizens by the decision made in 2016, they had no say in it.
It is a notable feature of the EU negotiations in which the Government are involved at this moment that, although the rights of EU citizens in this country now seem to be protected, British citizens living in other EU countries will have inferior rights because those rights will exist only in the countries where they are currently resident; the rights will not be passportable because those people will lose the right to freedom of movement between other EU countries. That is a very important point: whereas EU citizens in the UK can move back and go to any other EU country, as things stand, British citizens  in the EU will only be able to reside in that particular country and will not have the rights of free movement elsewhere in the EU. That needs to be looked at.
I wish to declare that I am the honorary president of Labour International—at least until Momentum gets rid of me. [Interruption.] I am not joking; it has been suggested. I am speaking because I am aware of the concerns of so many—not just people in the Labour party but Conservatives internationally. Clearly, there was an excuse: we had a general election this year, so the Bill that might have come through from the 2015 election has not been produced. Therefore, I have been pursuing the matter with some questions.
I tabled questions in November asking the Minister for the Cabinet Office
“what plans the Government has to extend the voting rights of UK citizens who are resident overseas in UK elections and referendums”,
and
“if he will bring forward legislative proposals to guarantee votes for life in UK elections and referendums for all UK citizens living abroad.”
The answers referred me
“to the reply given to the Member for Halifax (Ms Lynch) on Thursday 7 September 2017”.
The answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax received, to a question asked on 4 September, was:
“As outlined in our manifesto, the Government is committed to legislating to scrap the 15-year rule and will do so in time for the next scheduled parliamentary general election in 2022.”
That is not good enough. They were working on a schedule for 2020 and an early general election meant that people could not have a vote in that election. There is absolutely no guarantee in the current political climate that the next general election will be in 2022; it could be before then.
This is not a partisan point; there will be those across the parties who disagree with extending that democratic right to all British people living overseas. But in the modern age, with digital systems of voting, checking or registration, we need to modernise and extend democracy to all those British people, particularly given that we are bringing about significant change not just in this country, but all over the world.

Jeremy Lefroy: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), and I will come on to the point he made a little later in my remarks.
I also extend to all those working on our behalf over Christmas and the new year, whether in the private sector or public services, my grateful thanks. They give up their family time on our behalf. In my constituency of Stafford, I particularly think of the workers at General Electric, some of whom are facing an uncertain future, with a consultation going on over the loss of 500 jobs. I assure them of my commitment to see that, if there are other opportunities locally or regionally, they are made aware of them and that all support possible is given to them.
I want to tackle three subjects, the first of which is health and social care. I have spoken often on this subject, particularly in respect of Stafford Hospital,  now County Hospital. It is great to be able to say that the care at County Hospital, formerly the Stafford Hospital, has improved tremendously over the past few years. I pay tribute to the workers there, who have gone through a very difficult period, both at the time of the Francis public inquiry and then at the time of the trust special administration—the only trust special administration under the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

Bob Stewart: I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He has worked tirelessly to sort out that hospital, and he has been a great advocate of getting it fixed.

Jeremy Lefroy: I am most grateful, but I think my hon. Friend perhaps exaggerates my own part in this. It is really the workforce at the hospital who have done it, but I accept his thanks on behalf of all those at the County hospital and in Stafford who have fought for it.
I want to talk about the forthcoming Green Paper on social care, and my remarks will include both health and social care. It will provide a really important opportunity for us to change things in health and social care for the better and for the long term, but it will need cross-party working. The area of social care and health has been blighted too often by infighting between the parties. We also need to take an integrated approach.
We score highly, internationally, in regard to people’s opinion of their access to good healthcare. In a survey carried out not so long ago, 35% of people in the USA said that they did not have good access to good quality healthcare. In France, the figure was 18%, in Germany it was 15%, and in the UK it was only 4%. That is the glory of our national health service: by and large, it gives people access to high-quality healthcare, whatever their income and wherever they live in the United Kingdom. However, it is also generally accepted that more money is required. I do not have time to go into the detailed figures, but something between 1% and 2% more GDP needs to be spent on health and social care. The question that needs to be asked in our contributions to the Green Paper next year is: how is that money to be raised?
I have always said that we need a ring-fenced health and social care levy, on top of our present budgeted expenditure on health and social care. It needs to be a broad-based levy, and it needs to be income based, so that it is fair across the country and the population. Such a levy would not provide for everything that we need to do, but it would help to ensure that the £10 billion to £20 billion of additional resources that we need to put into the health and social care system as a minimum in the coming years, on top of what we already spend, was available. What is more, I think that it would be accepted by the general population. If the money were ring-fenced for health and social care, they would know that it would be spent on things that they really cared about and needed. Let us not forget that the national health service is one of the biggest sources of cohesion in our country; it is something that we all rely on.
I want briefly to touch on the European Union negotiations, which are incredibly important to all of us. The Prime Minister has said that she wants the best possible deal, and I absolutely support her in that. We need a unique, long-term deal that is the best possible for our jobs and tax revenues, and also for bringing back control to this country in certain areas. The deal must include goods and services—not just goods—and  it must be frictionless. It must fully respect the Belfast agreement. It must also respect the people of Gibraltar. It must cover security, aviation, data and many other areas, including agreements with other countries, of which there are dozens.
There has been discussion over whether we should be closer to Norway or Canada—mention has been made of “Canada plus-plus-plus”—but I simply make the observation that geographically, and probably in spirit, we are closer to Norway than to Canada when it comes to this type of agreement. I urge the Government to look closely at that matter. I also suggest that we look at the European Free Trade Association. It is not perfect, and it might not be something for the near term, but I believe that in the medium term we cannot stand on our own. We need to work together with other like-minded nations, which might include Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and perhaps others. When it comes to negotiating agreements and working together on trade, it is better to work with a number of countries rather than just on our own.
We also need to consider the idea of associate European citizenship, on a voluntary basis, for all those United Kingdom citizens who want to retain strong close allegiances with our friends and neighbours in the European Union. It has been raised as a possibility by Guy Verhofstadt in the European Parliament and by others. Let us take it into consideration in the negotiations.
Finally, but in some ways most importantly of all, I want to touch on humanitarian work. There are possibly more refugees across the world now than at any other time since the end of the second world war. Whether from Syria, Yemen, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Burma or Burundi, there are possibly up to 50 million refugees, not including the people who are suffering within their own countries.
I welcome the recent news about Hodeidah in Yemen, and the fact that the port has been opened up for a minimum of 30 days for humanitarian and relief supplies. I pay tribute to Her Majesty’s Government for their work on that, but we must keep an eagle eye on the situation over this Christmas and new year recess. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1.7 million have had to flee their homes this year—more than in any other country in the world—yet it sadly receives hardly a mention in the news and even in this place. Four million people have been displaced, and 7 million people are struggling to feed themselves. In 2018, it is absolutely vital that the UK maintains the work that it is doing all over the world on humanitarian affairs, in which we lead in so many cases. With that, Mr Speaker, I wish you a very happy Christmas.

Deidre Brock: I am going to start by sounding a bit “Bah, humbug”—I will save my felicitations for the end—but I want to raise an important subject. It relates to the Delegated Legislation Committee that I was in on Tuesday, which was considering both the new date for disclosures about donations to the Northern Ireland parties and treating such donations in the same way as donations to other parties. It is a long-running issue that was first suggested a decade ago, but successive Ministers have kicked the issue down the road over the years.
The revelations about the large donation to the Democratic Unionist party for Brexit campaigning, made from Scotland through Northern Ireland, presumably to avoid the usual reporting restrictions, forced the hand of the current Government, and the secondary legislation that we were considering on Tuesday was presented. That donation was £435,000 from the Constitutional Research Council. The organisation is based in Scotland, but none of us in Scottish politics had heard of it before. However, I note that it has links to the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who I believe received some thousands of pounds on behalf of the European Research Group—the Conservatives’ extreme Brexit wing.
During the proceedings on Tuesday, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), told the Committee that she had consulted the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland, as she was obliged to do, and she gave the impression that the commission was in agreement with the Government on the date of commencement. She said:
“I hope that the Committee has found that summary of the provisions helpful. As hon. Members know, the Electoral Commission will be responsible for implementing the arrangements set out in the draft order. The Government have fulfilled our statutory obligation to consult the commission about the draft order; I place on the record my thanks to the commission and its staff for their close co-operation and constructive input into the drafting process.”—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 19 December 2017; c. 5.]
My office contacted the commission yesterday and was told that it remains of the opinion that the start date for open reporting should be 1 January 2014, rather than the new date of 1 July this year. That is important because the commission still wants the appropriate date to be the one that is in legislation passed by this Parliament. That legislation was intended to normalise the reporting of donations and loans to Northern Irish parties and to make it difficult to channel money secretly into politics.
We are all well aware of the need for transparency in politics and of the need to avoid corruption and to be seen to be avoiding corruption, and we trust the Electoral Commission to do its job and ensure that the rules are followed. Its staff are the experts in this field, and while I am aware that experts are not in favour in some parts of this House, we can surely agree that we should take the advice of the Electoral Commission on matters pertaining to donations and loans to political parties.
It is unfortunate that the Minister gave the impression on Tuesday that she had the commission’s agreement, when it is clear that she did not and does not. I hope that she will take the opportunity to clarify the situation to the House and for the record. Meanwhile, since it is clear that the commission remains opposed to the new date presented in secondary legislation and since the regulations have not yet been presented on the Floor of the House for approval, I wonder whether the Minister might reconsider her position and defer the introduction of these regulations until the Government have had sufficient time to consult properly on the most appropriate date for the proper and full reporting of donations and loans in Northern Ireland to start.
Reporting was originally supposed to start from 2007, and a Government consultation in 2010 showed that more than three quarters of respondents in Northern Ireland wanted it to go ahead, but I am afraid that it  was fudged. It was deferred and put back on the shelf, and eventually new legislation, the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, set a new date of 1 January 2014. We should see that date honoured.
I hope that the Minister intends to address the wrongful impression given to the Committee that the commission agreed with the new date and that she will withdraw the regulations presented and take time to undertake a proper and full consultation on them, so that we get a date that satisfies the intent behind the legislation. We must avoid corruption and any danger of leaving the impression that there might be something to hide. It is vital that a debate on this issue be scheduled in the House in the new year.
On that rather sombre note, I would like to wish everyone in the House, all the officers, you, Mr Speaker, and the Deputy Speakers, who have been so helpful to us all throughout the year, “Nollaig chridheil agus bliadhna mhath ùr”, which is Scottish Gaelic for, “Merry Christmas and happy new year.” I particularly want to send my thoughts and best wishes to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I am fond of the gentleman and was very sad to hear of his difficulties. I wish him and his family all the best.

John Bercow: Thank you very much.

Diana R. Johnson: A very experienced Member of Parliament said to me recently that the “MP” at the end of our names does not just mean “Member of Parliament”; it also means “must persevere”. I want to speak in this debate because I want to tell the House again about the contaminated blood scandal, and I will persevere in my view that justice delayed is justice denied.
It was great news on 11 July when the Government announced an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal, the biggest treatment disaster in the history of the NHS. We know that at least 2,400 people have died and that others still live with the effects of HIV, hepatitis C and other viruses they got through contaminated blood products. I put on the record again my personal thanks and the thanks of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood for the Prime Minister’s decision to hold that public inquiry, as announced on 11 July, but it is now 21 December and sadly we have not seen the public inquiry established, we do not have the name of a chair and we do not even have draft terms of reference for people to be consulted on.
We are in this pickle because, unfortunately, despite the good intentions behind the announcement in July, the Government held on for far too long to the idea that the Department of Health had to lead on the establishment of the inquiry. Despite near unanimity in the community of those affected that the Department, as a party implicated in the scandal, should have nothing to do with the public inquiry, it took until 3 November for the Government to say it would be moved to the Cabinet Office. We welcome that—it is a positive development— but it took far too long. It took the involvement of the former Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, to help get the message across to the Government that the Department was not the appropriate body to lead on this.
Many people did not want to get involved with the consultation because the Department of Health was at its centre. The Cabinet Office took control of the inquiry on 3 November, which we welcome, and it said there would be an update before Christmas on what will happen next. We were hopeful that a chair would be announced by today. I find it a little galling that this is the last day before we rise for Christmas and, although a written ministerial statement was on the Order Paper when I looked at 8.30 am, it took until 2.13 pm for us to see exactly what the Government propose.
The Government have now said that they will have a judge-led inquiry, which I understand from the people who engaged with the consultation earlier this year was the wish of the overwhelming number of people. That is positive, but today’s statement gives no indication of when we will get the judge’s name. What concerns me, as I started off by saying, is that people are living today with HIV, hepatitis C and other conditions, and people are dying today because of what happened to them. We are now five and a half months on from that initial positive announcement, but we still cannot see the start of the public inquiry. Can the Minister enlighten us on when in the new year the name might be announced?
In the light of what recently happened with Grenfell—where a judge was appointed and the community raised concerns about not feeling part of the inquiry—whoever leads the inquiry on contaminated blood has to ensure that the families and those affected are at its very heart, feel included and are able to contribute as fully as possible. My only reason for raising that is that the judge-led Penrose inquiry in Scotland did not deliver in the way we wanted for the people of Scotland who have been affected by this scandal. Part of the problem was the judge who was appointed. We need to make sure that whichever judge is appointed has not only the requisite legal and forensic skills to do a good job, but the ability to understand what has happened to the people who have been so badly damaged by the contaminated blood scandal.
We are grateful for the involvement of the former Bishop of Liverpool, Bishop James Jones, in interceding with the Government in the summer on the involvement of the Department of Health. His skill, wisdom, knowledge and ability would be well used in some capacity in the inquiry that we hope will start next year. I hope that the Government will take that on board.
The Government could also take steps now to try to alleviate some of the suffering that this group of people is experiencing. First, the Government have introduced a new financial scheme—not compensation but limited financial support—but the scheme in Scotland is more generous in some regards. I ask the Minister to take it to his colleagues to see whether we can agree to have a scheme in England that is no less generous than the scheme in Scotland, with the anomalies in the English scheme being ironed out.
Secondly, the Government could also take action now so that people affected by the contaminated blood scandal are passported through the benefits system, so that they do not have to have constant assessments for personal independence payment and employment and support allowance, and everything else.
Thirdly, as in the Irish settlement, priority for NHS treatment should be given to people affected by contaminated blood. Again, the Government could introduce that positive measure now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: There are three remaining would-be Back-Bench contributors. The Front-Bench winding-up speeches must begin no later than 4.27 pm. Members can do the arithmetic for themselves.

Stephen Timms: I commend the perseverance of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) in pursuing this contaminated blood scandal. Like others, Mr Speaker, I wish you and everyone a very happy Christmas, but the topic I wish to raise is a bit less merry.
Jobcentres are evaluated on the basis of benefit off-flow. Plaistow jobcentre, which was, until its closure in October, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who is in her place, had a poor record. A new manager, Tony Sutton, appointed in May 2013, and a new deputy, Nazia Goci, were determined to raise benefit off-flow. A very troubled employee at the jobcentre, a constituent of mine, came to see me in September 2013. She described “awful working conditions”, and “unfair benefit sanctions” harassing people off benefits. I alerted the Department, and a senior official visited the jobcentre in October. I was grateful for that, but I understand that staff were banned from expressing concerns to him. He reported that everything was fine.
I was told that it was common to ask people to sign on for their benefit claim at irregular dates, in the hope they would forget to do so one week and their claim would then be closed; and that advisers were told to sanction a claimant if they called them on their mobile twice and they did not answer. In June 2014, I met for the first time my constituent Nasima Noorani, a personal adviser at Plaistow jobcentre, and Jannat Mirza, a team leader. They had been sacked from Plaistow the month before. A number of former staff there, not those I have mentioned, told me of a practice introduced by the new management. It was designed, in particular, to avoid people reaching 52 weeks in their jobseeker’s allowance claim, because at that point they would have had to be referred to the Work programme. There was immense pressure on staff to stop this happening and to stop referrals taking place. The procedure, which I am told was used repeatedly from mid- 2013, was that as people approached a deadline they would be taken off benefit and paid instead the same amount of cash from the flexible support fund for a couple of weeks, on a pretext—for example, to pay for a travelcard to get to a non-existent job—and then signed back on to JSA again a short time afterwards. Claimants got the same amount of cash and benefit off-flow went up by one.
However, claimants’ housing benefit was affected. One of the people on the receiving end of this, whom I know, complained about it. As a result, Naseema Noorani and Jannat Mirza were sacked. The claimant who complained, and all the staff I have discussed this with, are quite clear that those two employees were not the guilty parties. Naseema Noorani was the adviser who initiated the flexible support fund payment, but she only saw that claimant that morning because a colleague was late. It was made clear by managers that this was what she should do; the FSF payment was specified in a post-it note already on the claimant’s file. Jannat Mirza had no involvement at all. She merely authorised the  use of a form for a slightly different purpose from usual. No action was taken against other staff who specified how much should be paid and who authorised the claim; nor against the managers. Naseema Noorani and Jannat Mirza were clearly scapegoats to cover up malpractice by more senior colleagues.
Jannat Mirza, unable to afford representation, lost an unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal seems to have done a cut-and-paste job on the Department for Work and Pensions’ submission, and made no serious attempt to address what had really happened. Naseema Noorani did not even try to claim. Since 2014, nobody has been able to tell me any possible gain from the fraud to the staff who were sacked. Others, however, had a clear career incentive to boost benefit off-flow. I have pursued this for three and a half years. Unable to remedy the injustice—and one of the two women is still out of work after more than three years—I simply want to place on the public record an account of what really happened.
Poorly designed numerical targets gave big incentives to managers, and in this case, as has perhaps occurred in others, they succumbed to temptation to bend the rules for their own advancement. As well as holding the managers to account, Ministers need to reflect on what went wrong and on the very high price paid by wholly blameless employees and large numbers of benefit claimants.

Siobhain McDonagh: This time last year, my single, a Band Aid cover named “National Living Rage”, rocketed up the Christmas charts, highlighting the plight of workers and the national scandal of low and unfair pay in Britain. There are many matters of sincere importance to be discussed before the forthcoming Adjournment, but this Christmas there are perhaps few as critical, heartbreaking and lamentable as the fact that 128,000 children will wake up homeless on Christmas morning. I cannot help but wonder how closely my two recent Christmas campaigns are linked, because more than half the homeless households in London are in work.
It would take a heart of stone to consider childhood homelessness on any scale to be acceptable. I was simply astonished to hear the Prime Minister seem to justify this crisis in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday by remarking that these children are not rough sleepers. Maybe not, but these children will wake up on Christmas morning in B&Bs, in hostels, or in the heart of a working industrial estate in my own constituency of Mitcham and Morden.

Lyn Brown: I have not seen children sleeping rough, but I have certainly seen children under the age of 12 in hostels that churches run to keep people off the street. For me, that is the lowest level “roof over head” that there is. It is not a big step away from sleeping on the street.

Siobhain McDonagh: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Consider Sarah’s family, who live in temporary accommodation in Mitcham. They will not have a Christmas dinner because they have no facilities to be able to cook one. They will not have a Christmas tree because their room does not fit anything other than the bed that the four of them share. They will not have any presents because every penny possible is being put aside  so that one day they will have enough for the extortionate deposit that is the golden ticket needed to enter the private rented sector. In fact, I will be amazed if Father Christmas is even able to find Sarah’s family, because hers is one of the 22,000 families that have been moved out of their home borough, often without the receiving local authority being made aware of their arrival. When that happens, I am in no doubt that their safety cannot be guaranteed.
Recent freedom of information requests by the Children’s Rights Alliance for England have astonishingly discovered that almost a quarter of temporary accommodation is inspected by local authorities only once tenants have left. Worryingly, nearly two thirds of local authorities said that they did not even seek advice from their safeguarding service when they placed families in B&Bs or temporary accommodation. These are the realities faced by the 79,190 families in temporary accommodation in England today. Of course, those figures do not even account for the 9,000 rough sleepers on the streets of our constituencies, or for the 56% of 16 to 25-year-olds in the UK who say that they have family or friends who have sofa-surfed.
There can be no doubt about the responsibility for the country’s deplorable housing crisis. The report published yesterday by the Public Accounts Committee stated explicitly that the Department for Communities and Local Government has had an “unacceptably complacent” attitude to the reduction of homelessness. The Department’s current plans to tackle the issue were said to address only the tip of the iceberg, and there is an unacceptable shortage of realistic housing options for the homeless. Of course, most of us knew that already.
The last time that the Government target of building 300,000 new homes in one year in England was achieved was almost half a century ago, in 1969. The difference back then was that councils and housing associations were building new homes. But a solution is right here, in our hands: we must give councils the right to build as well as the right to buy. The private sector has never reached, and does not have the inclination to reach, the Government’s targets. For example, last year, only 121,000 permanent dwellings were completed by private companies; meanwhile, just 1,840 were completed by local authorities.
If the Government target of building 300,000 new homes is to be achieved, councils simply have to play their part, which is why I am calling on the Government to grant local authorities the right to build and the right to buy so that housing can be let to families on low incomes at social housing rents. A home to live in should appear on no child’s Christmas wish list. Father Christmas is simply not in a position to influence the budgets of local authorities, but the Government are, and on behalf of the 128,000 homeless children across the country, I sincerely hope that this will be their last Christmas morning without a place to call home.

Jim Shannon: As always, it is a pleasure to be called to speak. Just as an introduction, let me quickly focus on the real meaning of Christmas. It is about not the actual date, but the remembrance. The very word “Christmas” means a Christ celebration. This is a time that has been set aside for people around  the world to remember the fact that Christ gave up his divinity to come to earth in human frailty as a baby, to grow up tempted and tested, as each and every one of us has been, and ultimately to be the key part in God’s plan of salvation for every person on this planet through his death and resurrection. There is no point in Christmas if we do not have an Easter, and I am very pleased to celebrate them both.
This is a time when people of every nation, tribe and tongue have time to recognise not a date, but a promise fulfilled; not a time of birth, but an offer of a new birth to all who believe and accept Christ; not a birth certificate, but a plan from a loving God to a most beloved people. That is what Christmas is really all about. I love Christmas as a time to remember what the Lord did for us. I know that Christians throughout the world are joining me and others to thank God for the real meaning of Christmas.
At this time of year, we must also remember those across the world who, due to persecution and deliberate verbal and physical abuse, cannot go to their church and worship God as we can. I urge people inside and outside this House to pray for those people and to keep them very much in their thoughts.
In the short time that I have, I will mention a scripture text that I received, “Labour for the night cometh”. I thought very much about what I wanted to say. I know others have talked about this, but I very quickly want to focus on the volunteers and say a most sincere thank you to the people in our communities who work day and night, week day and weekend, sacrificing themselves nine-to-five, indeed a lot more, to provide help and assistance to people throughout the UK. They will not be able to spend the whole day at Christmas with their family, as they will be taking care of other people’s families. I am also thinking of NHS staff, healthcare staff, auxiliaries, porters, cleaning staff, GP services, lab technicians, and members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the police services, and the intelligence agencies. They do not sleep in their beds so that we can sleep in ours. I am also thinking of the fire service, the prison officers and all the staff in the road services. There are also those in uniform, whether in the Royal Navy, the Army or the Air Force. People posted in other parts of the world will not be close to their families. We should take a moment to think of all of them.
I also wanted to take this time to highlight the fact that our nation would not work the way that it does without the help and support of the literal army of volunteers who daily give their time and energy to make a difference and help people throughout this land. We simply could not live our life without them.
We live in a nation of givers: people who give charitably and generously throughout the whole year. It always makes me feel very, very proud to be British when I think about our giving mentality. I know that people in Northern Ireland perhaps give above the national average, but everybody, in all regions of the United Kingdom, gives and we should keep that in mind.
I am also very conscious of the fact that I should mention a few charities. I do not have time to go through them all, but let me mention very quickly the food banks and the people who work for them. There are 1,235 Trussell Trust food banks and 700 independent food banks. Staggeringly, volunteers do almost 3 million hours of unpaid work each year. That is equivalent to a basic wage of some £22 million. That is what the volunteers  in the food banks do for us. We should consider that, as well as having this mainly volunteer-based support, this one sector has thousands who donate to food banks to help people in their communities. We all make a contribution to that.
At this Christmas time, I want to express my sincere thanks to all those who, throughout the year, have volunteered and helped out in churches and community groups in my constituency of Strangford and in the rest of our great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Our society simply would not work without people going out of their way to help others. That selflessness is so clear at Christmas as we hear of people donating to the food banks, of churches providing gifts, of people carol singing to the elderly and of people inviting neighbours and relatives to eat with them.
Christmas is very much about families. Mr Speaker, you will have your family with you at Christmas time, and I wish you every enjoyment with that. All of us will hopefully have our families around us as well, but there are those who do not have families, and we should be ever mindful of them.
I offer my most sincere thanks to everyone who has played a part in making someone’s life better this year—whether that is the Salvation Army helping individuals or the homelessness organisations that hon. Members have mentioned. We all have a focus on people, because we all try to work on behalf of our constituents.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your patience with us all in this House. It is quite something. I know that I have said this many times, but I do say it with sincerity. In fact, you probably show more patience to me than to anybody else. Next year, I am really going to try not to use the word “you”. I will endeavour to make that happen; it has only taken me seven years to remember and I will try to remember it in the year to come, if we are spared.
As other hon. Members have said, the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle) is very much in our thoughts. We keep his family very much in our minds and our prayers at this time.
I thank the other Deputy Speakers, who—like you, Mr Speaker—treat us very fairly, with so much patience and kindness. Mr Speaker, you are very much a champion of the Back Bencher. As a Back Bencher who has no aspirations to be anything other than a Back Bencher, I particularly enjoy the opportunity to participate in the debates in this House.
I thank the Hansard staff, who have been able to understand my accent and my Ulster-Scotsisms, which have actually been quite challenging for me at times, so they must be much more challenging for anybody else. I also thank all the staff, including security, who look after us in the House.
I hope that all hon. and right hon. Members in this House, Her Majesty, the Prime Minister, Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition have a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. I also publicly wish my constituents in Strangford, who I have the privilege to represent, a merry Christmas, and a happy and blessed new year.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has spoken in the spirit that we have come to expect from him, and it is hugely appreciated.

David Linden: What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has been a real source of encouragement in his fellowship to me since I joined the House; I pay tribute to him.
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate before the Christmas adjournment. Before doing so, I would like to express my best wishes to the whole House, particularly the staff of the House, who have been incredibly welcoming to new Members. I hope they have a very happy and peaceful Christmas.
When I volunteered to sum up this debate for the Scottish National party, I was not quite aware of what I was letting myself in for. We have heard 16 Back-Bench contributions, from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Keighley (John Grogan), for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), for Southend West (Sir David Amess), for West Ham (Lyn Brown), for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and, of course, for Strangford (Jim Shannon). This has been the most wide-ranging debate that I have ever seen in this House. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Southend West, who managed to get 25 or 26 different topics into six and a half minutes, which will be a real challenge for me next year.
I also place on the record my sincere thanks to my constituency staff—Derec, Carolann, Emily, Ross, Laura, David and Michelle—for all their hard work since my election in June. Their support has been invaluable and I am truly indebted to them.
Mr Speaker, the turn of the year is normally an opportunity for us to reflect on the year just past. However, with your indulgence, I want to look forward to 2018, particularly to some of the major challenges coming down the track for my city of Glasgow. On Friday last week, I had a meeting with Easterhouse Housing and Regeneration Alliance, which is a coalition of eight independent, community-based social housing providers in Greater Easterhouse. Before going any further, I pay tribute to the staff and directors of those eight housing associations, because our housing associations in the east end of Glasgow are more than just that: they are the backbone of the community, and go well above and beyond the role of a registered social landlord. It is important that that point is placed on the record and that our sincere thanks are expressed to all housing associations, which are so often the glue that holds our community together.
When I met EHRA staff last week, they expressed some serious concerns about changes emanating from the Department for Work and Pensions next year that will, quite frankly, be a hammer blow to the city of Glasgow—and a double blow at that. Ministers have already signalled their intention to close half of Glasgow’s jobcentres, with three out of the four jobcentres in Glasgow’s east end due for the axe. As is stands, jobcentres in Easterhouse and Parkhead, as well as in Bridgeton, in the constituency  of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), will all be closed and relocated to Shettleston. Nowhere in the UK is being as disproportionately impacted by jobcentre closures as Glasgow’s east end—an area that has an unemployment rate double the UK national average.
I am afraid that, despite countless written questions, correspondence and a face-to-face meeting at Caxton House, the Employment Minister has repeatedly failed to take account of the profound concerns expressed by myself and the whole community in Glasgow’s east end. That includes our three east end Tory councillors, who also oppose these closures.

Patrick Grady: As my hon. Friend says, the jobcentre closures are affecting the whole city of Glasgow. Is he particularly concerned, as I am, that Ministers have not been very reassuring on whether this will be the last round of closures, and that there is a real risk that, further down the road, the city could lose even more of its jobcentre provision?

David Linden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. The fact that Ministers have not clarified that point should be sounding alarm bells in our city, and I very much join him in expressing that concern.
However, it is not too late for the Government to drop these plans. They should conduct a full equality impact assessment. When they do, they will see for themselves the profound challenges posed by sanctions, poor transport connections and the deep-rooted issues of territorialism and gang violence that still exist in our city.
The second issue of concern expressed to me by the EHRA relates to universal credit. The social destruction that is universal credit is due to be unleashed on Glasgow next year, and it is crystal clear from the debates we have had in the House that it is simply not working. More than that, it is fundamentally flawed, and the tweaking around the edges that we saw during the Budget simply is not enough. Major concerns still exist—among not just politicians on both sides of the House but housing associations in the third sector—as to how universal credit is due to be rolled out, particularly in Glasgow.
Every day, evidence is mounting that universal credit is creating social destruction as it continues to roll out across these islands. The reduction from six weeks to five weeks, although welcome, is not enough. The wait for the first payment of universal credit is pushing people into rent arrears, debt and crisis, and we know that 25% of claimants are even waiting longer than six weeks—and that is according to the Department for Work and Pensions.
I am afraid that the manner in which the Tories have rolled out universal credit is completely opposed to their stated intention of making it mirror a salary. The refusal to halt the roll-out is nothing more than arrogance, and we see that the Conservative party is wedded to this ideological flagship welfare cut, despite the misery it is causing in our local communities.
Citizens Advice Scotland has said that evidence from five bureaux in areas where universal credit has been fully rolled out has shown an average 15% rise in rent  arrears issues, compared with a national decrease of 2%, and an 87% increase in crisis grant issues, compared with a national increase of 9%. Citizens Advice Scotland has also analysed over 52,000 cases it has seen and has concluded that those on universal credit would, on average, appear to have less than £4 per month left to pay all their creditors after they have paid essential living costs—that is not something we should be condoning in the House.
Finally, the Trussell Trust has reported seeing a 17% increase in food bank usage in areas of full universal credit roll-out—more than double the national average. My own local food bank—Glasgow NE Foodbank, run by Tara Maguire—is already at breaking point. The full universal credit roll-out in Glasgow could well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. That is why I am very much calling today for the roll-out of universal credit to be halted and abandoned entirely in Glasgow.
If there is one thing I have learned in my time in this House, it is that the Government have difficulty listening. We see that with Opposition day debates and with the power grab they are trying with the Brexit Bill. So if I may, I would, in the spirit of Christmas, urge Ministers to come back to the House with a new year’s resolution to listen and to act in the interests of our communities. They can start doing that by abandoning the proposed closure of Glasgow’s jobcentres and halting the universal credit roll-out in Glasgow.

Karin Smyth: I did promise the House brevity, as I am aware that colleagues will want to return to their constituencies and families for Christmas and, indeed, to start some Christmas shopping—those of us who have not managed it. I spotted some Ministers in the House of Commons shop this morning, so I know we are all a little behind.
With the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Trade Secretary and the Business Secretary all in Poland, and with the First Secretary resigning, I wonder whether my opposite number, the Deputy Leader of the House, feels that he is here starring in the remake of “Home Alone” this Christmas. I enjoy working opposite him; he has been very supportive. I wish him well in his endeavours. I think the Government are in safe hands with him in the coming weeks.
Brexit is the biggest issue of our time, and it is right that we have concentrated so much of our time in this place on that subject. We have had over 64 hours of debate on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. Over 300 amendments have been tabled and there have been 14 reports by 10 different Committees. There have been 43 votes in total, and we have won one—but a very important one. As many colleagues have said previously—you have endorsed this, Mr Speaker—it is crucial to the functioning of our parliamentary democracy that all Members vote according to their judgment of the best interests of their constituents. The outcome on amendment 7 has therefore been reassuring for all democrats.
I would never have thought that I would be pleased to be surrounded by so many eminent lawyers and scholars of “Erskine May” in the past few weeks, but it has been very interesting. I have found it quite a treat to witness colleagues pursue so ingeniously every legislative avenue to take back control to this place. I have learned a lot.  I have learned about Humble Addresses, and I am now almost clear on the difference between a sectoral analysis and an impact assessment.

Nicholas Dakin: You could make a lot of money out of that.

Karin Smyth: I could have done if I had chosen a different career.
We owe many right hon. and hon. Members who have pored over every detail of the Bill, their advisers, and, indeed, the Clerks of this House a huge debt of gratitude. I sincerely hope that they have some lighter reading over the Christmas period.
While we have been talking a lot about Brexit, Members have participated in debates on other really important subjects here and in Westminster Hall. We have heard from colleagues, particularly here, about the roll-out of universal credit, which has been discussed again this afternoon. This policy is having a huge impact on families struggling to make ends meet, whom we particularly think about over this Christmas period. All of us, regardless of party, have a huge number of constituents who are affected. I know that my colleagues will share a commitment to do all we can to help mitigate the impact of this when the House returns in the new year.
During this interesting debate, many hon. Members have raised issues close to their own hearts and their own constituencies. It has been a fairly sombre debate with so many important issues being raised. It has illustrated the fact that regardless of which side of the House we sit on, our constituents often face the same issues, and we do share work and support each other across the House to make things better for people.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan), the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and finally—well volunteered—the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden): they should have told you what you were letting yourself in for.
We have heard about a huge range of subjects. I did not know that it is the 50th anniversary of Crisis, which the hon. Member for Harrow East talked about. The theme of transport occupied my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and for Ealing Central and Acton. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley made an excellent point on behalf of sports fans, workers, shoppers and theatre-goers travelling on Boxing day. Like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton is well advised on transport matters by a son who is very keen on these subjects. She made a good point about the  impact of welcome infrastructure projects on her constituency with regard to HS2, and the importance of small businesses.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham again demonstrated the range of passionate campaigns that she has pursued in this place. She is held in huge respect across the House for that work. We heard about three of the campaigns that she will be pursuing. She has already managed to elicit some response from the Government Front Bench on that work.
I first heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South speak at a Labour party event when I was a young child in the late 1980s—he talked about defence and international affairs and was hugely impressive. He is hugely knowledgeable on these subjects. Today he spoke, again with great passion, about British citizens here and abroad. Long may he continue to do so, on behalf of the people of Ilford South.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North is the embodiment of the phrase “must persevere”. I remember being here to hear the good news that she shared about the campaign in July, and I am shocked to hear that she has had to pursue the work down every single avenue. As she said eloquently, she will persist on behalf of those families.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham—he is very knowledgeable, and I always listen attentively when he talks about these matters—raised some terrible accounts of activities that are going on in Plaistow jobcentre. I know that he will pursue the matter with Ministers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden reminded us of the production last year of her record, which we all very much enjoyed. She is pursuing relentlessly another Christmas campaign on behalf of homeless children, for whom she has been working so hard. She is another dedicated campaigner, who has been a constant source of good advice and support to me and to many other hon. Members.
I am sure everyone will join me in thanking all those across the country who, despite enormous pressure on local services, continue to work so hard over this period to provide the vital services that our communities need. To our servicemen and women, to those who keep our public places clean and to all public servants I express heartfelt thanks for all that they do. If I may, I would like to touch on my own constituency, Bristol South, and pay tribute to all the GP surgeries and to the staff at South Bristol Community Hospital, who will be providing vital care to people over this period.
In keeping with the Christmas tradition, let me say that the red, red robin keeps bob, bob, bobbing along, and I take this opportunity to say well done to Bristol City on their 2-1 win last night against Manchester United at Ashton Gate. Never have I met so many fans of not wanting Manchester United to win as I did in the Lobbies last night. I am not a regular football fan, although I enjoy going to the occasional game and watching. But I work very closely with the club, which is based in my constituency and which makes a huge contribution to the local community. We have heard about how many other football clubs across the country do similar work. Well done to Bristol City, and I hope that they have some rest over the period before the next game with Manchester City. It is a shame that the draw  did not turn out differently, Mr Speaker, because I would have enjoyed welcoming you back to Bristol South to watch the game if Arsenal had been drawn.
I am looking forward to spending some family time in Bristol, and I am sure that my family will be pleased to see me. As the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire said, this job is not easy, and our families support us very well. I hope that many hon. Members will have time with their families. I will be catching up with “The Crown”. I am a huge fan of the series, and I am hoping that I might be able to polish my accent a little bit by the end of it. I am hoping to catch up with “The Last Jedi”, which I have not seen yet. If any hon. Members have not seen “Paddington 2”, I would thoroughly recommend it. It carries some heart-warming messages about the importance of being an inclusive and caring society that we could all take away with us.
Bristolians will have the opportunity to visit my constituency to watch “Beauty and the Beast”, which is being performed in the Tobacco Factory theatre. It is a reminder that in the often cruel times in which we live, beauty and, indeed, beastliness are only skin deep. On that note, I wish all my colleagues, and colleagues from across the House, a safe, happy and peaceful Christmas. I look forward to continuing to work with them all in the new year and, of course, welcoming in a new Labour Government.

Michael Ellis: The hon. Lady’s speech was going so well until that last point; I really do not think that that is likely to happen.
I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments. She started by mentioning how many Ministers from Her Majesty’s Government were abroad in Poland at the moment. May I assure the House—and you, Mr Speaker—that I am not the only one left, as you can see from the Front Bench? I think the stock markets may still be open, so I do not want to alarm them. I am not in charge.

Bob Blackman: Shame!

Michael Ellis: I hear shouts of “Shame” from behind me. They will no doubt be kindly noted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke as passionately as ever about his constituency. Before doing so, he made reference to the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle), who is the Chairman of Ways and Means and Deputy Speaker of this House, and the tragedy that has befallen him. Our hearts go out to the right hon. Gentleman—our friend—at this time of tragedy.
My hon. Friend referred to his work on the Homelessness Reduction Act, which is soon to come into force; it will do so on, I think, 1 April next year. He mentioned that it is the longest and most expensive private Member’s Bill ever, which is impressive, but what is important is what he has achieved, and that wonderful achievement recognises that we all have an interest in reducing homelessness.
My hon. Friend also spoke about events in his constituency and organisations such as Mencap, the body encouraging children and young people to work  on computer code and the charity Crisis. I know that he is referred to by the Hindu community in his constituency as Bobbhai, a term of affection, and he is recognised throughout his constituency of Harrow East as a representative of all his constituents.
The hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) spoke about the train service, or the lack thereof, on Boxing day. He also spoke about his sports teams; he wished them well, and we join him in doing so. A number of constituency Members will no doubt recognise the issue of the absence of train services on Boxing day, and I am sure he will pursue it. He finished by mentioning a horse race in his constituency, the King George VI chase, which takes place on that day. He will no doubt be there to enjoy that race; at least, I am making such an assumption.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) made a passionate speech about the HPV vaccination for boys as well as for girls. He clearly speaks with considerable expertise, given his dental background, and he made a powerful case. I have no doubt that he will want to raise this matter with the Health Secretary. What he said was clearly well informed. I can say that, since 2010, survival rates for cancer have increased year on year, and it is true that the statisticians have calculated that some 7,000 people are alive today who would not have been alive without those year-on-year increases. There is, however, much more work still to do.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) spoke about the importance of broadband in his constituency in Scotland. I have to say that, since 2014, the Scottish Government have had the funding, but have not started on this important matter and Scotland has fallen behind England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As a consequence, the next generation of broadband funding will not be going through the Scottish Government. On the local full-fibre networks programme and the 5G programme, the United Kingdom Government will work directly with local councils, because it is very important for broadband to be provided to his constituents and those throughout Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke about settlement funding. He spoke very passionately about the efficiency of Bromley Council, which clearly has a powerful advocate in him. Other organisations, such as our armed forces, also have a very powerful advocate in my hon. and gallant Friend. He is a powerful advocate for his constituency, and he spoke about the efficient running of his local authority. I have no doubt that the Department for Communities and Local Government will have heard what he said.
The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) spoke about HS2 and the Park Royal area in her constituency. She was clear about the value of small businesses, so I know she will want to congratulate the Government on the fact that the United Kingdom has, for the first time, been ranked first in Forbes’s annual survey of the best countries for business. I have looked into the matter she raised about the compensation for small businesses in her area, and I understand that the first date under law for such compensation is 10 January 2018—I have been told that it is on time—and that there are discretionary payments of up to £250,000 to help with cash flow. I have also been told that the Minister for Rail, the Under-Secretary of State for  Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), has written to her. The letter has been posted today, so I hope she will receive it soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) spoke, as he has done previously, about the painful condition of endometriosis. I know that he will continue to highlight that painful condition that affects hundreds of thousands of people around the world, including many in the United Kingdom. He also spoke about Volunteering-on-Sea, an organisation in his constituency that looks after 10 to 20-year-old disadvantaged young people. He said that he had attended an event with a number of centenarians. He still has a long way to go before he becomes a member of that particular club, but I know how well he looks after people of all ages in his constituency. I know he is still keen to see Southend declared a city. He mentioned the pending royal wedding, and I would be remiss if I did not at this point offer congratulations to His Royal Highness Prince Harry, and wish him well for that. As to whether Southend will be a city by that date—well, my hon. Friend will have to consult people other than myself.
I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) had a productive meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), about the painful condition on which she has been passionately campaigning for so long. She has support from across the House on that subject, and I am pleased that the meeting with the Under-Secretary of State went well. She also spoke about the fixed odds betting terminals and machines that are a feature of this day and age, and she will no doubt be pleased that a consultation has been launched by the Government on that issue.
The hon. Lady also focused on depersonalisation disorder, and she knows an individual in her constituency who suffers from that. There will no doubt be many others, and sometimes diagnosis is very slow for that condition. She wishes to meet a Minister from the Department for Health. I am sure that we can help to arrange such a meeting, and if she writes to me we will certainly help in any way we can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) spoke about volunteering in his constituency. He said that we have seen a prevalence of intolerance in British politics that he thinks is not acceptable—I think we would all agree. As he said, and as I can confirm, most Members across the House are able to chat and disagree professionally, while still getting on well and socialising, and all Members will agree that abuse, threatening behaviour, insulting conduct, leaving coffins outside the offices of MPs, and the like, is to be deprecated in the strongest possible terms. My hon. Friend said that he is proud of the Conservative party. May I just say that the party is proud of him?
The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) spoke about people in the European Union, and elsewhere around the world, who lose their power to vote once they have lived outside the United Kingdom for 15 years. I am pleased that he is in favour of reforming that, but I think it was a previous Labour Government who reduced the level from 20 years to 15 years. I am pleased that he is speaking about the rights of UK citizens living in EU countries, and I have certainly heard Conservative Members  speak about that subject repeatedly. As has been agreed, the intention is to scrap that rule before the next scheduled general election in 2022.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) can claim a personal success in his campaign on the hospital in his area, which I know he worked on a great deal. He spoke about the NHS, and like all of us he is so proud of the national health service. According to the Commonwealth Fund, the NHS has been rated the best health service among the 11 developed countries, and that is something of which the NHS, and all its staff, can be very proud. My hon. Friend wants—as do we all—the best possible Brexit deal for this country, and no doubt he and many others will join me in expressing great confidence that the Prime Minister will deliver just that. He also spoke, as he often does and will continue to do, on humanitarian work and the 4 million displaced people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) made allegations that she will no doubt want to raise in the proper place. Members are open to considerable scrutiny and I invite her to declare any information she may have on that subject to the appropriate authorities.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has been a passionate campaigner on the contaminated blood issue. She is to be commended and congratulated on her work. She said that she was grateful to Her Majesty’s Government because in the summer the Prime Minister agreed to hold a public inquiry. There is more to be done. I understand that today’s written ministerial statement indicated that it would be a judge-led inquiry, and that there would be a further statement in the new year regarding the name of the judge and the fuller composition of the inquiry.
The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) spoke about a particular jobcentre issue in his constituency, which was concerning to hear about. I suggest that, if he has not already done so—I suspect he has—he should raise it with the relevant Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions. He made a powerful case, as he often does.
On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), Her Majesty’s Government are dedicating over £1 billion to 2020 to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, and to support the Homelessness Reduction Act. I am running out of time, but if I may I will just say that 1.1 million additional homes have been delivered since 2010—over 357,000 affordable homes, with 217,000 last year. That is the highest for all but one of the last 30 years. There is more work to do—there always is—but housebuilding starts have increased by more than three quarters since 2009. Over 432,000 households have been helped into home ownership through Government schemes such as Help to Buy and right to buy.
We finished with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke of the true meaning of Christmas. I remember him doing so last year at this time. I thank him for and congratulate him on his work. He spoke passionately about volunteers and the giving mentality, which I know he himself has. He spoke of the wonderful people of Northern Ireland and his constituency. I can absolutely agree with him about that, not least—I should declare an interest—because my mother was  born in Northern Ireland. He is a doughty champion in this place for the disadvantaged and dispossessed around the world at this time of year. He is a powerful advocate for those good causes. He spoke of Mr Speaker as the champion of the Back Benchers and I know Back Benchers would certainly agree with that.
May I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and the staff of this House for the work they do all year round? I thank not only those who protect the security of this House and serve it in myriad ways, but those who protect the country here in the United Kingdom and around the world. Her Majesty’s armed forces serve around the world, so many will not be with their families over the festive period. I take this opportunity to thank them from the Dispatch Box for their service to this country. I thank everyone here and wish them all a very merry Christmas.

John Bercow: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House, the shadow Deputy Leader and all colleagues for their speeches this afternoon and, in particular, for their expressions of gratitude to my colleagues who sit in the Chair and, above all, to all those who serve us in various capacities with great ability and commitment in this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

Cycling Fatalities: Ian Winterburn

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

Fabian Hamilton: This debate is the last parliamentary business before the recess and, indeed, the last business of the year, but it nevertheless deals with an issue that is of great seriousness and grave concern to my constituents and to many others, given the number of people who have been injured or killed when cycling on our roads.
On 12 December last year, 58-year-old Ian Winterburn was cycling to work at 7.30 am, as he did every day. Ian was a keen and regular cyclist. As usual, he was wearing his cyclist’s high-visibility jacket, and all his bike lights were on. He always wore a cycling helmet. As he was passing the junction of Whitkirk Lane on the A6120 ring road in Halton, Leeds, a silver Skoda Fabia was signalling to turn right, but instead of waiting for Ian to cycle past, the driver went straight into him, knocking him off his bike and fatally injuring him. She claimed that she had not seen him. After 10 days in a coma, Ian died from his injuries on 22 December.
Cyclist Charlie Alliston was famously sentenced to 18 months in prison recently for fatally injuring pedestrian Mrs Briggs in one of two such fatal accidents last year, yet any more cyclists have been killed or badly injured by cars during the same period. Alliston’s case justifiably received plenty of media coverage, but shocking deaths such as that of Ian Winterburn scarcely receive any, and public anger towards cyclists is now at an all-time high.
The 51-year-old driver of the Skoda that killed Ian was sentenced on 20 October by Leeds magistrates court for causing death by careless driving.

Ruth Cadbury: I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating the debate. I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on cycling, and I commend to him one of the recommendations of our report on justice for cyclists. We asked the Government to address
“Confusion and overlap between ‘careless’ and ‘dangerous’ driving”
in such cases.

Fabian Hamilton: I shall deal with the issue of careless versus dangerous driving and the different penalties involved. Indeed, I shall refer to the all-party parliamentary group that my hon. Friend so ably chairs, and of which I am currently the treasurer.
The driver of the Skoda was given a four-month prison sentence suspended for two years, a £200 fine, 200 hours of community service and a two-year driving ban. Her licence had been suspended previously for 14 months for drink-driving.
One of the most shocking aspects of this tragic case—apart from the loss of a much-loved husband, father and teacher—is the way that the family have been treated by the various authorities involved in dealing with the terrible and totally avoidable loss of such a valuable life. Ian Winterburn was hit at 7.30 am that day, but the West Yorkshire police crash investigation team did not arrive at the scene for more than an hour.
The police and the Crown Prosecution Service believed that the driver did not adequately defrost her car windscreen before setting off from her home nearby. There was  circumstantial evidence to support that, as her windscreen wipers and car heating were on full power although it was a dry day. However, because the crash investigation team took so long to arrive, they could not confirm the state of the windscreen at the time of the accident. Of course, had they arrived sooner, there could have been proof that the windscreen was not properly de-iced. The driver would then have faced a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, which carries a considerably higher sentence on conviction than the lesser charge of death by careless driving.
There is only one crash team for the whole of West Yorkshire, an area with a population of 2.3 million. The family have asked a number of pertinent questions about that issue alone. They asked, for example, why there was only one crash team for such a large area, how many people were in that team, how many crash investigations they investigated each week and where the team was based.
It took more than three hours for the police to contact Mrs Winterburn that day to inform her about the collision. When she asked why it had taken so long, the answer was that the crash team was too busy securing the crash site and collecting evidence, which was its main priority, and that there were not enough staff to contact Mrs Winterburn earlier. As Members may imagine, this was extremely traumatic for Mrs Winterburn and her family and greatly added to the trauma they experienced upon hearing such terrible news.
But it gets worse. When the family arrived at the hospital, they spent a number of hours in the resuscitation unit, where no staff were available to keep them updated. Ian Winterburn was still wearing his cycling clothes, and it was to be another 16 hours before any member of staff gave the family information about the extent of Ian’s injuries, the prognosis or, indeed, the next steps in his treatment.
Let me move on now to the role of the coroner service. Although Ian died on 22 December, just one year ago tomorrow, it took until 10 January to obtain a death certificate. That was apparently because of a backlog over the Christmas and new year holidays, but it meant that Ian’s body had to be kept at the Leeds General Infirmary mortuary for two weeks before a funeral could take place. As Members may imagine, this added considerably to the stress and trauma suffered by the family. Presumably, people still die from unknown causes or accidents over holiday periods, and although everyone deserves holidays and time off, especially public servants, surely it is important that the coroner service does not close, except perhaps on Christmas day itself.
The Crown Prosecution Service told the family that the case against the driver who killed Ian was so serious that it would be heard in the Crown court and that they should not even attend the magistrates court hearing, which would be merely a formality and would only last for a few minutes. However, in the event, the driver was convicted, after two one-hour sessions, by the magistrates court, and no support whatsoever was given to the family.
No help was even offered to the family in the preparation of their victim statements, which of course they had little knowledge of how to prepare and no previous experience of writing. This further added to the anxiety felt by Ian’s close family, and made them lose faith in the whole criminal justice system. One of the pertinent  questions asked by Ian’s daughter, my constituent Alex Wilks, who is here today, when she came to see me about her father’s death and her family’s treatment by the various authorities was, “Why is the most senior CPS lawyer in West Yorkshire only employed for two days a week?”
After the shock of the brief court case and what the family feels is the inadequate sentence for a driver who had previously been given a 14-month driving ban after a conviction for drink-driving, the family was told by the police that the coroner would now close the inquest because there had been a criminal conviction. A short while later, the coroner phoned Georgina, Ian’s widow, to tell her that there would still be an inquest and that a number of witnesses would attend it.
As we can imagine, this came as a huge shock to the family, and Alex, Ian’s daughter, rang West Yorkshire Victim Support to ask what the family should expect from the hearing, only to be told that it knew nothing about the hearing. The next day the coroner’s office rang Georgina to tell her that there had been a “mix-up” and that there would not be an inquest after all. No apology has ever been offered for the further upset caused to the family by this so-called “mix-up”.
Many Members will know that I am a keen cyclist, because I pester them every summer to donate to my annual charity bike ride, and I can often be seen arriving at the Palace of Westminster in my hideous, brightly coloured lycra on my carbon racing bike; indeed you, Mr Speaker, have generously seen me off on some of my cycling jaunts.
I am also an officer of the all-party group on cycling, which last July published a report into cycling and the justice system. We took a huge amount of evidence from cycling groups, lawyers, the police, the CPS, Transport for London, local authorities and many others. Among our conclusions were the following recommendations. The police must ensure that a higher standard of investigation is maintained in all cases where serious injury has resulted. That includes eyesight testing, mobile phone records and assessments of speed, drink and drug driving. We received many examples of the police failing to investigate properly, or even to interview witnesses or victims. Too often, weak investigations have undermined subsequent cases. I hope that the Minister will want to comment on this.
We also recommended that all police forces should ensure that evidence of common offences submitted by cyclists or other witnesses using bike-mounted or person-mounted cameras or smart phones should be put to use and not ignored. Too often, these bits of evidence are ignored. The confidence of cyclists that their safety is a priority for the police will be undermined if such evidence is dismissed and no action is taken. In some cases, just a written warning could be enough to change bad behaviour.
The length of time required by the police to serve a notice of intended prosecution for a road traffic offence is currently just 14 days, and that must be extended. That was one of our strong recommendations. We believe that that period is too short to enable cases to be adequately processed. In some cases, it could enable offenders to escape justice altogether.
We also said that there was confusion and overlap between careless and dangerous driving, a point echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and  Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), so bad driving often does not receive the level of punishment that the public feel it should. New offences introduced over the past few years have started to plug some of the gaps in the legislation, but many problems remain, particularly when cyclists are the victims. We believe that the Ministry of Justice should examine in more detail how these offences are being used, including the penalties available for offences of careless and dangerous driving.
The police and the CPS should ensure that victims and bereaved families are always kept adequately informed throughout the process of deciding charges. This is done in many cases, but we have heard of victims being ignored and informed only at a much later date that cases have been dropped or that guilty pleas for lesser offences have been accepted.

Ruth Cadbury: I am a member of the Justice Committee, and one of the issues that we have heard about—which applies not only to cases such as this one—is that the cutbacks in the Courts Service and the Ministry of Justice mean that there are fewer people to carry out these important administrative tasks. In too many cases, administrative failures mean that justice is not being served, either for the victims or for their families, because there are not enough people to make the kind of contact that is, as my hon. Friend says, so important at times like these.

Fabian Hamilton: Again, I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. I think that the first part of my speech clearly showed that the family of Ian Winterburn are just such a family. They had appallingly bad service from the CPS; they were not kept informed at all. They were given no assistance; there was no family support whatever. I do not know whether that was the result of cutbacks or of bad organisation and training. I think my hon. Friend probably knows more than I do about that, because she is a member of the Justice Committee, but I will leave it to the Minister to respond to that point.
The final recommendation in our report involves the fact that the number and length of driving bans appears to have declined, with a 62% fall in driver disqualifications over the past 10 years. That is double the fall in convictions for driving offences. Furthermore, very large numbers of drivers are escaping disqualification on reaching 12 points or more on their licence. The Ministry of Justice should examine the reasons behind the decline in the use of the penalty of disqualification and in particular the effect of the so-called exceptional hardship scheme.
I know that our report, which was published seven months after Ian Winterburn was killed, will ring many bells in the minds of his family, who still grieve for him every day. The family would like answers to a number of more specific questions, notwithstanding the recommendations I have just read out, so will the Minister answer the following questions? What is the current status of the review of guidelines for causing death by careless driving? Is a review even being carried out? Why do drivers who have caused death not face mandatory custodial sentences? How many complaints does the Ministry of Justice receive about the coroner service  every year? What training is given to the coroner service staff? Who holds the coroner service to account? Is it the Ministry of Justice or is there any form of local accountability? When was the last review of the coroner service, and what were its findings? Finally, when will the coroner service website be improved to offer more and better information to grieving and unsupported families, which seems a simple, straightforward reform?
In conclusion, if we truly care about our environment and about the growing public health crisis, surely we must do far more to encourage cycling, both as a healthy activity and as a way to reduce carbon emissions and congestion, but tragedies such as the death of cyclist Ian Winterburn do nothing but discourage the public from cycling. We need to make cycling far easier and much, much safer, and part of that task is about ensuring that when terrible fatal accidents do occur, the appropriate administration of justice can be relied upon. We all need the assurance that cycling is a safe activity and a good way to move around our towns and cities for everyone who is capable of using a bike. Meaningful answers to and action from the Winterburn family’s pertinent questions, born out of tragedy and grief, would be a good start.

Dominic Raab: I begin by thanking you for your stewardship of these debates over the past year, Mr Speaker, and I wish you a restful Christmas with your family.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing today’s debate. It is fitting that we finish by debating such an important issue and fitting that the debate is being led by the hon. Gentleman in his doughty way. He is passionately defending and championing his constituents, who have raised an issue not just of local concern and concern to him, but of national importance. Colleagues who have dealt with tragic cases in their constituencies know that careless or dangerous driving can ruin lives and devastate families. Numerous colleagues from across the House have raised their cases with me, as the hon. Gentleman has done passionately and tenaciously, and with my predecessors who held this portfolio at the Ministry of Justice.
By way of context, road deaths in Britain have been reducing over the past 30 years as a result of a whole range of factors, including safer infrastructure, new vehicle technologies, tougher law enforcement and shifting social attitudes—there has been a ground shift in how people think about drink-driving. We should also pay tribute to our precious NHS, which provides far better trauma care than was the case when I was first learning The Highway Code. As a result, casualty figures show a 5% fall from last year alone. However, more than 27,000 people died or were seriously injured on our roads last year. While many of those were tragic accidents, too many of them involve criminal behaviour, whether classified as dangerous or careless driving, or people failing to stop at the scene so that there is proper accountability. Of course, behind each and every collision statistic, each of those 27,000 cases represents an individual story of a life or a family devastated, personal suffering or family trauma.
The hon. Member for Leeds North East is raising one of those tragic cases: the death of cyclist Ian Winterburn, the father of his constituent, Alexandra Wilks. I believe  that some of the family are here today, so I extend my personal condolences and deepest sympathies to them, particularly at this delicate time as we approach Christmas. Mr Winterburn was involved in a road traffic incident just over a year ago and, as the hon. Gentleman said, tragically died of his injuries. As the hon. Gentleman will know, as a Justice Minister, I cannot comment on the judicial treatment of the individual case, the decision on prosecution, or the charges brought by the CPS. Those matters are dealt with independently, which is of course right as politicians should not interfere with either prosecutorial or judicial matters. He will know that some of the operational police matters are for his local constabulary or police and crime commissioner.
The hon. Gentleman has raised many questions, and I want to focus on as many of them as I can in the time available. I can talk, as he knows, in general terms about what the Government are doing to ensure the courts have adequate powers to deal with the most serious offences committed on our roads that result in either death or injury. As I think he and the APPG will know, on 16 October the Government published their response to the consultation on driving offences and penalties relating to causing death and serious injury. It concentrated on the most serious driving offences—those that result in death or serious injury—and considered a range of concerns raised in recent years by victims of these crimes and their families, by members of the public, whether individually or as signatories to petitions, and by parliamentarians, both in debates and on behalf of their constituents.
The consultation closed earlier this year and we received 9,000 responses, which I think is close to, if not, a record, showing how widespread is the public interest and concern in this pertinent area of law. It is not one of those esoteric areas of law; it affects people’s daily lives. We considered all the submissions in detail before publishing our response, and in that response we distilled and considered the views and came forward with three specific changes to the law, all of which received overwhelming support in the consultation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome them too. I am always careful about such matters, given the suffering and the fact that justice can go only a small part of the way, but I hope that victims and families find some solace in these measures and that the public see in them a stronger sense of justice.
We propose to give courts additional powers to deal with the most serious cases where life is lost by increasing the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from the current 14 years to life imprisonment. That means that in the most serious cases—for example, where an offender has previous convictions for serious crimes, where their behaviour was particularly dangerous or culpable, or where there are multiple victims—offenders could face, depending on the judicial determination, a maximum life sentence.
We also propose to raise the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs from 14 years to life imprisonment. Although the standard of driving in that category of cases may not amount to dangerous driving per se, we consider that, if combined with a decision to get behind the wheel while under the influence of drink or drugs, the overall seriousness of the offence should be considered the same as for dangerous driving and that the penalty should be the same.
We also propose to close a gap in the law. Currently, the maximum penalty for careless driving is a fine. Not least given some of the anguish the hon. Gentleman reflected in his powerful speech, it is time to consider whether that really is good enough. A fine is the maximum penalty in all cases of careless driving that do not result in death. Even if the driver injures another road user, cyclist or passenger, and even if the incident results in the victim being left with a serious, debilitating or permanent injury, the court can only impose a fine. It seems clear that the law needs to provide a stronger response to careless driving that results in serious injury. We propose, therefore, to create a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. This will carry a custodial penalty and sit alongside the existing offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. Again, this was supported by those who responded to our consultation earlier this year.
We intend to bring forward these proposals for reform as soon as parliamentary time allows. The Government are determined to clamp down on all dangerous, careless and reckless criminal behaviour on our roads, and it is right that any changes to legislation take account of the Government’s wider proposals for safer roads. We want to make sure that we have a consistent sentencing framework for those who kill or cause serious injury on our roads, and we intend to incorporate the changes I just outlined, along with those that emerge from the review of cycling safety that the Transport Secretary announced back in September and which I am sure the APPG would commend and welcome.
In the time available, I want to touch on some of the wider points the hon. Gentleman raised. He asked about the Sentencing Council, which is obviously independent and is responsible for issuing the guidelines and keeping them under review. A review of the guidelines for motoring offences involving death is on the council’s work plan and has been postponed pending the Government’s consultation and any changes to the law that flow from it. It is, of course, sensible that the guidelines should reflect changes to the law—there is no point reviewing the guidelines if the law is about to change—and new draft guidelines will be subject to full public consultation in due course.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the distinction between careless driving and dangerous driving, which the APPG also considered. The law, as it currently stands, sets out an objective test designed to compare the driving of a defendant in the specific circumstances of a case with what would be expected of a notionally careful and competent driver.
What amounts to dangerous driving is determined not, as is more normal in criminal law, by considering the driver’s state of mind or intentions, which in the context of driving is often quite difficult to gauge or ascertain, but by examining the nature of the driving itself. In general terms, if the court considers that the driving falls far below the expected standard, and if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that the manner of driving was dangerous, the court will find it to have been dangerous driving.
The consultation examined the option of a single bad driving offence, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and we set out in detail why we are not persuaded of the case for change. Those who propose a single test tend to say it will lead to more convictions and longer sentences—I  totally understand the impetus and drive behind that—but, as we explained in the consultation, we do not think that will necessarily be the case, because the maximum penalty for a single offence would have to be broad enough to cover the most serious offences. We have proposed that causing death could result in a life sentence but, in the least serious cases, a driver’s culpability for the death could be much lower. The challenge is to reconcile or unite those two offences.
If the offences do not make a distinction between the seriousness of the offending, it is possible that the conviction rate could actually fall because juries might be reluctant to convict a driver in some less serious cases—ones where they could imagine themselves in the same position—for an offence with a very serious maximum penalty. Of course, sentences also may not increase, because a judge would still consider the culpability of the offender in deciding the appropriate sentence. I would not want to mislead victims or families that a broader offence might result in higher sentences. I am  also not sure that a single offence would mean the Crown Prosecution Service is unable to accept a lesser plea in circumstances where that is inappropriate.
I hope I have addressed at least some of the wide-ranging concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman in this important debate. This is our last debate before we rise for Christmas. I cannot think of anything more tragic than the loss of a life, especially where that loss is avoidable—we are all trying to prevent such deaths.
Again, I extend my deepest condolences to the Winterburn family, especially as we approach Christmas time. No punishment will make up for the loss of a loved one—we all know that—but we can and should make sure that justice is properly done. That is the least the victims and the families deserve, and it is precisely what the public expect.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.